﻿* A Project Gutenberg Canada Ebook *

This ebook is made available at no cost and with very few
restrictions. These restrictions apply only if (1) you make
a change in the ebook (other than alteration for different
display devices), or (2) you are making commercial use of
the ebook. If either of these conditions applies, please
check gutenberg.ca/links/licence.html before proceeding.

This work is in the Canadian public domain, but may be under
copyright in some countries. If you live outside Canada, check your
country's copyright laws. IF THE BOOK IS UNDER COPYRIGHT
IN YOUR COUNTRY, DO NOT DOWNLOAD OR REDISTRIBUTE THIS FILE.

Title: The Day of Sir John Macdonald:
   A Chronicle of the First Prime Minister of the Dominion
   [Vol. 29 of "The Chronicles of Canada"]
Author: Sir Joseph Pope (1854-1926)
Date of first publication: 1920
Place and date of edition used as base for this ebook:
   Toronto: Glasgow, Brook & Company, 1920 (First Edition)
Date first posted: 15 February 2008
Date last updated: 15 Febrary 2008
Project Gutenberg Canada ebook #82

This ebook was produced by: Iona Vaughan, David T. Jones, Mark Akrigg &
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdpcanada.net




THE CHRONICLES OF CANADA

THIRTY-TWO VOLUMES ILLUSTRATED

Edited by GEORGE M. WRONG and H. H. LANGTON


THE CHRONICLES OF CANADA


PART I THE FIRST EUROPEAN VISITORS

 1. THE DAWN OF CANADIAN HISTORY
            By Stephen Leacock.

 2. THE MARINER OF ST MALO
            By Stephen Leacock.


PART II THE RISE OF NEW FRANCE

 3. THE FOUNDER OF NEW FRANCE
            By Charles W. Colby.

 4. THE JESUIT MISSIONS
            By Thomas Guthrie Marquis.

 5. THE SEIGNEURS OF OLD CANADA
            By William Bennett Munro.

 6. THE GREAT INTENDANT
            By Thomas Chapais.

 7. THE FIGHTING GOVERNOR
            By Charles W. Colby.


PART III THE ENGLISH INVASION

 8. THE GREAT FORTRESS
            By William Wood.

 9. THE ACADIAN EXILES
            By Arthur G. Doughty.

10. THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE
            By William Wood.

11. THE WINNING OF CANADA
            By William Wood.


PART IV THE BEGINNINGS OF BRITISH CANADA

12. THE FATHER OF BRITISH CANADA
            By William Wood.

13. THE UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS
            By W. Stewart Wallace.

14. THE WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES
            By William Wood.


PART V THE RED MAN IN CANADA

15. THE WAR CHIEF OF THE OTTAWAS
            By Thomas Guthrie Marquis.

16. THE WAR CHIEF OF THE SIX NATIONS
            By Louis Aubrey Wood.

17. TECUMSEH: THE LAST GREAT LEADER OF HIS PEOPLE
            By Ethel T. Raymond.


PART VI PIONEERS OF THE NORTH AND WEST

18. THE 'ADVENTURERS OF ENGLAND' ON HUDSON BAY
            By Agnes C. Laut

19. PATHFINDERS OF THE GREAT PLAINS
            By Lawrence J. Burpee.

20. ADVENTURERS OF THE FAR NORTH
            By Stephen Leacock.

21. THE RED RIVER COLONY
            By Louis Aubrey Wood.

22. PIONEERS OF THE PACIFIC COAST
            By Agnes C. Laut.

23. THE CARIBOO TRAIL
            By Agnes C. Laut.


PART VII THE STRUGGLE FOR POLITICAL FREEDOM

24. THE FAMILY COMPACT
            By W. Stewart Wallace.

25. THE 'PATRIOTES' OF '37
            By Alfred D. DeCelles.

26. THE TRIBUNE OF NOVA SCOTIA
            By William Lawson Grant.

27. THE WINNING OF POPULAR GOVERNMENT
            By Archibald MacMechan.


PART VIII THE GROWTH OF NATIONALITY

28. THE FATHERS OF CONFEDERATION
            By A. H. U. Colquhoun.

29. THE DAY OF SIR JOHN MACDONALD
            By Sir Joseph Pope.

30. THE DAY OF SIR WILFRID LAURIER
            By Oscar D. Skelton.


PART IX NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

31. ALL AFLOAT
            By William Wood.

32. THE RAILWAY BUILDERS
            By Oscar D. Skelton.


TORONTO: GLASGOW, BROOK & COMPANY




THE DAY OF

SIR JOHN MACDONALD

BY SIR JOSEPH POPE

[Illustration: SIR JOHN MACDONALD CROSSING THE ROCKIES OVER THE NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, 1886

From a colour drawing by C. W. Jefferys]




THE DAY OF
SIR JOHN  MACDONALD

A Chronicle of the First Prime Minister of the Dominion


BY

SIR JOSEPH POPE

K.C.M.G.




TORONTO
GLASGOW, BROOK & COMPANY
1920


_Copyright in all Countries subscribing to the Berne Convention_

PRESS OF THE HUNTER-ROSS CO., LIMITED, TORONTO


PREFATORY NOTE


WITHIN a short time will be celebrated the centenary of the birth of
the great statesman who, half a century ago, laid the foundations and,
for almost twenty years, guided the destinies of the Dominion of
Canada.

Nearly a like period has elapsed since the author's _Memoirs of Sir
John Macdonald_ was published. That work, appearing as it did little
more than three years after his death, was necessarily subject to many
limitations and restrictions. As a connected story it did not profess
to come down later than the year 1873, nor has the time yet arrived
for its continuation and completion on the same lines. That task is
probably reserved for other and freer hands than mine. At the same
time, it seems desirable that, as Sir John Macdonald's centenary
approaches, there should be available, in convenient form, a short
résumé of the salient features of his career, which, without going
deeply and at length into all the public questions of his time, should
present a familiar account of the man and his work as a whole, as well
as, in a lesser degree, of those with whom he was intimately
associated. It is with such object that this little book has been
written.

                                    JOSEPH POPE.

OTTAWA, 1914.

                              CONTENTS


                                                        Page

     PREFATORY NOTE                                      vii

  I. YOUTH                                                 1

 II. MIDDLE LIFE                                          40

III. OLD AGE                                             139

     BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE                                184

     INDEX                                               187


                              ILLUSTRATIONS


SIR JOHN MACDONALD CROSSING THE
ROCKIES OVER THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED
CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, 1886                _Frontispiece_

From a colour drawing by C. W. Jefferys.

THE MACDONALD HOMESTEAD AT ADOLPHUSTOWN      _Facing page_ 4

From a print in the John Ross Robertson
Collection, Toronto Public Library.

JOHN A. MACDONALD IN 1842                             "   12

From a photograph.

SIR ALLAN NAPIER MACNAB                               "   36

From a portrait in the John Ross Robertson
Collection, Toronto Public Library.

SIR EDMUND WALKER HEAD                                "   42

From the John Ross Robertson Collection,
Toronto Public Library.

SIR ÉTIENNE PASCAL TACHÉ                              "   70

From a portrait in the John Ross Robertson
Collection, Toronto Public Library.

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD IN 1872                         "   96

From a photograph.

SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD IN 1883                         "  138

From a photograph.




CHAPTER I

YOUTH


JOHN ALEXANDER MACDONALD, second son of Hugh Macdonald and Helen Shaw,
was born in Glasgow on January 11, 1815. His father, originally from
Sutherlandshire, removed in early life to Glasgow, where he formed a
partnership with one M'Phail, and embarked in business as a cotton
manufacturer. Subsequently he engaged in the manufacture of bandanas,
and the style of the firm became 'H. Macdonald and Co.' The venture
did not prove successful, and Macdonald resolved to try his fortunes
in the New World. Accordingly, in the year 1820, he embarked for
Canada in the good ship _Earl of Buckinghamshire_, and after a voyage
long and irksome even for those days, landed at Quebec and journeyed
overland to Kingston, then and for some years after the most
considerable town in Upper Canada, boasting a population (exclusive of
the military) of about 2500 souls.

At that time the whole population of what is now the province of
Ontario did not exceed 120,000, clustered, for the most part, in
settlements along the Bay of Quinté, Lake Ontario proper, and the
vicinity of the Niagara and Detroit rivers. The interior of the
province was covered with the primeval forest, which disappeared
slowly, and only by dint of painful and unceasing toil. The early
accounts of Kingston bear eloquent testimony to its primitive
character. In 1815, according to a correspondent of the Kingston
_Gazette_, the town possessed no footways worthy of the name, in
consequence of which lack it was, during rainy weather, 'scarcely
possible to move about without being in mud to the ankles.' No
provision existed for lighting the streets 'in the dark of the moon';
a fire-engine was badly needed, and also the enforcement of a
regulation prohibiting the piling of wood in public thoroughfares.

Communication with the outside world, in those early days, was slow,
toilsome, and sometimes dangerous. The roads were, for the most part,
Indian paths, somewhat improved in places, but utterly unsuited,
particularly in spring and autumn, for the passage of heavily laden
vehicles. In 1817 a weekly stage began running from Kingston to York
(Toronto), with a fare of eighteen dollars. The opening of an overland
highway between Kingston and Montreal, which could be travelled on by
horses, was hailed as a great boon. Prior to this the journey to
Montreal had been generally made by water, in an enlarged and improved
type of bateau known as a Durham boat, which had a speed of two to
three miles an hour. The cost to the passenger was one cent and a half
a mile, including board.

In the early twenties of the nineteenth century the infant province of
Upper Canada found itself slowly recovering from the effects of the
War of 1812-14. Major-General Sir Peregrine Maitland, the
lieutenant-governor, together with the Executive and Legislative
Councils, was largely under the influence of the 'Family Compact' of
those days. The oligarchical and selfish rule of this coterie gave
rise to much dissatisfaction among the people, whose discontent,
assiduously fanned by agitators like Robert Gourlay, culminated in
open rebellion in the succeeding decade.

Such was the condition of things prevailing at the time when the
future prime minister arrived in the town with which he was destined
to be in close association for nearly three-quarters of a century.

Hugh Macdonald, after a few years of unsatisfactory experience in
Kingston, determined upon seeking fortune farther west. Accordingly he
moved up the Bay of Quinté to the township of Adolphustown, which had
been settled about forty years previously by a party of United Empire
Loyalists under the command of one Captain Van Alstine. Here, at Hay
Bay, Macdonald opened a shop. Subsequently he moved across the Bay of
Quinté to a place in the county of Prince Edward, known then as the
Stone Mills, and afterwards as Glenora, where he built a grist-mill.
This undertaking, however, did not prosper, and in 1836 he returned to
Kingston, where he obtained a post in the Commercial Bank. Shortly
afterwards he fell into ill health, and in 1841 he died.

﻿[Illustration: THE MACDONALD HOMESTEAD AT ADOLPHUSTOWN

From a print in the John Ross Robertson Collection, Toronto Public Library]

Few places in the wide Dominion of Canada possess greater charm than
the lovely arm of Lake Ontario beside whose pleasant waters Sir John
Macdonald spent the days of his early boyhood. The settlements had
been founded by Loyalists who had left the United States rather than
join in revolution. The lad lived in daily contact with men who had
given the strongest possible testimony of their loyalty, in
relinquishing all that was dear to them rather than forswear
allegiance to their king, and it is not surprising that he imbibed, in
the morning of life, those principles of devotion to the crown and to
British institutions which regulated every stage of his subsequent
career. To the last he never forgot the Bay of Quinté, and whenever I
passed through that charming locality in his company he would speak
with enthusiasm of the days when he lived there. He would recall some
event connected with each neighbourhood, until, between Glasgow and
Kingston, Adolphustown, Hay Bay, and the Stone Mills, it was hard to
tell what was his native place. I told him so one day, and he
laughingly replied: 'That's just what the Grits say. The _Globe_ has
it that I am born in a new place every general election!'

When Hugh Macdonald moved from Hay Bay to the Stone Mills, his son
John, then about ten years of age, returned to Kingston to pursue his
studies. He attended the grammar school in that town until he reached
the age of fifteen, when he began the world for himself. Five years at
a grammar school was all the formal education Sir John Macdonald ever
enjoyed. To reflect upon the vast fund of knowledge of all kinds which
he acquired in after years by his reading, his observation, and his
experience, is to realize to the full the truth of the saying, that a
man's education often begins with his leaving school. He always
regretted the disadvantages of his early life. 'If I had had a
university education,' I heard him say one day, 'I should probably
have entered upon the path of literature and acquired distinction
therein.' He did not add, as he might have done, that the successful
government of millions of men, the strengthening of an empire, the
creation of a great dominion, call for the possession and exercise of
rarer qualities than are necessary to the achievement of literary
fame.

In 1830 Macdonald, then fifteen years of age, entered upon the study
of law in the office of George Mackenzie of Kingston, a close friend
of his father, with whom also he lodged. In 1832 Mackenzie opened a
branch office in the neighbouring town of Napanee, to which place
Macdonald was occasionally sent to look after the business. In 1833,
by an arrangement made between Mackenzie and L. P. Macpherson--a
relative of the Macdonaldsyoung Macdonald was sent to Picton, to take
charge of Macpherson's law-office during his absence from Canada.

On being called to the bar in 1836, Macdonald opened an office in
Kingston and began the practice of law on his own account. In the
first year of his profession, there entered his office as student a
lad destined to become, in Ontario, scarcely less eminent than
himself. This was Oliver Mowat, the son of Macdonald's intimate
personal and political friend, John Mowat of Kingston. Oliver Mowat
studied law four years with Macdonald, leaving his office in 1840.
About the same time another youth, likewise destined to achieve more
than local celebrity as Sir Alexander Campbell, applied for admission
to the office. Few circumstances in the political history of Canada
have been more dwelt upon than this noteworthy association; few are
more worthy of remark. A young man, barely twenty-one years of age,
without any special advantages of birth or education, opens a
law-office in Kingston, at that time a place of less than five
thousand inhabitants. Two lads come to him to study law. The three
work together for a few years. They afterwards go into politics. One
drifts away from the other two, who remain closely allied. After the
lapse of twenty-five years the three meet again, at the Executive
Council Board, members of the same Administration. Another twenty-five
years roll by, and the principal is prime minister of Canada, while
one of the students is lieutenant-governor of the great province of
Ontario, the other his chief adviser, and all three are decorated by
Her Majesty for distinguished services to the state.

The times were rough. In Macdonald's first case, which was at Picton,
he and the opposing counsel became involved in an argument, which,
waxing hotter and hotter, culminated in blows. They closed and fought
in open court, to the scandal of the judge, who immediately instructed
the crier to enforce order. This crier was an old man, personally much
attached to Macdonald, in whom he took a lively interest. In pursuance
of his duty, however, he was compelled to interfere. Moving towards
the combatants, and circling round them, he shouted in stentorian
tones, 'Order in the court, order in the court!' adding in a low, but
intensely sympathetic voice as he passed near his protégé, 'Hit him,
John!' I have heard Sir John Macdonald say that, in many a
parliamentary encounter of after years, he has seemed to hear, above
the excitement of the occasion, the voice of the old crier whispering
in his ear the words of encouragement, 'Hit him, John!'

In 1837 the rebellion broke out, and Macdonald hastened to give his
services to the cause of law and order. 'I carried my musket in '37,'
he was wont to say in after years. One day he gave me an account of a
long march his company made, I forget from what place, but with
Toronto as the objective point. 'The day was hot, my feet were
blistered--I was but a weary boy--and I thought I should have dropped
under the weight of the flint musket which galled my shoulder. But I
managed to keep up with my companion, a grim old soldier, who seemed
impervious to fatigue.'

In 1838 took place the notorious Von Shoultz affair, about which much
misunderstanding exists. The facts are these. During the rebellion of
1837-38 a party of Americans crossed the border and captured a
windmill near Prescott, which they held for eight days. They were
finally dislodged, arrested, and tried by court-martial. The
quartermaster of the insurgents was a man named Gold. He was taken,
as was also Von Shoultz, a Polish gentleman. Gold had a brother-in-law
in Kingston, named Ford. Ford was anxious that some effort should be
made to defend his relative. Leading lawyers refused the service. One
morning Ford came to Macdonald's house before he was up. After much
entreaty he persuaded Macdonald to undertake the defence. There could
be practically no defence, however, and Von Shoultz, Gold, and nine
others were condemned and hanged. Von Shoultz's career had been
chequered. He was born in Cracow. His father, a major in a Cracow
regiment, was killed in action while fighting for the cause of an
independent Poland, and on the field of battle his son was selected by
the corps to fill his father's place. He afterwards drifted about
Europe until he reached Florence, where he taught music for a while.
There he married an English girl, daughter of an Indian officer,
General Mackenzie. Von Shoultz subsequently crossed to America,
settled in Virginia, took out a patent for crystallizing salt, and
acquired some property. The course of business took him to Salina, N.Y.,
not far from the Canadian boundary, where he heard of the
rebellion going on in Canada. He not unnaturally associated the cause
of the rebels with that of his Polish brethren warring against
oppression. He had been told that the Canadians were serfs, fighting
for liberty. Fired with zeal for such a cause, he crossed the frontier
with a company and was captured. He was only second in command, the
nominal chief being a Yankee named Abbey, who tried to run away, and
who, Von Shoultz declared to Macdonald, was a coward.

Von Shoultz left to Macdonald a hundred dollars in his will. 'I wish
my executors to give Mr John A. Macdonald $100 for his kindness to
me.' This was in the original draft, but Macdonald left it out when
reading over the will for his signature. Von Shoultz observed the
omission, and said, 'You have left that out.' Macdonald replied yes,
that he would not take it. 'Well,' replied Von Shoultz, 'if it cannot
be done one way, it can another.' So he wrote with his own hand a
letter of instructions to his executors to pay this money over, but
Macdonald refused to accept it.

It has been generally stated that it was the 'eloquent appeal' on
behalf of this unfortunate man which established Macdonald's
reputation at the bar, but this is quite a mistake. Macdonald never
made any speech in defence of Von Shoultz, for two very good reasons.
First, the Pole pleaded guilty at the outset; and, secondly, the trial
was by court-martial, on which occasions, in those days, counsel were
not allowed to address the court on behalf of the prisoner.

This erroneous impression leads me to say that a good deal of
misapprehension exists respecting the early manhood of Canada's first
prime minister. He left school, as we have seen, at an age when many
boys begin their studies. He did this in order that he might assist in
supporting his parents and sisters, who, from causes which I have
indicated, were in need of his help. The responsibility was no light
one for a lad of fifteen. Life with him in those days was a struggle;
and all the glamour with which writers seek to invest it, who begin
their accounts by mysterious allusions to the mailed barons of his
line, is quite out of place. His grandfather was a merchant in a
Highland village. His father served his apprenticeship in his
grandfather's shop, and he himself was compelled to begin the battle
of life when a mere lad. Sir John Macdonald owed nothing to birth or
fortune. He did not think little of either of them, but it is the
simple truth to say that he attained the eminent position which he
afterwards occupied solely by his own exertions. He was proud of this
fact, and those who thought to flatter him by asserting the contrary
little knew the man. Nor is it true that he leaped at one bound into
the first rank of the legal profession. On the contrary, I believe
that his progress at the bar, although uniform and constant, was not
extraordinarily rapid. He once told me that he was unfortunate, in the
beginning of his career, with his criminal cases, several of his
clients, of whom Von Shoultz was one, having been hanged. This piece
of ill luck was so marked that somebody (I think it was William Henry
Draper, afterwards chief justice) said to him, jokingly, one day,
'John A., we shall have to make you attorney-general, owing to your
success in _securing_ convictions!'

[Illustration: Age 27      1842]

Macdonald's mother was in many ways a remarkable woman. She had great
energy and strength of will, and it was she, to use his own words, who
'kept the family together' during their first years in Canada. For her
he ever cherished a tender regard, and her death, which occurred in
1862, was a great grief to him.

The selection of Kingston by Lord Sydenham in 1840 as the seat of
government of the united provinces of Canada was a boon to the town.
Real property advanced in price, some handsome buildings were erected,
apart from those used as public offices, and a general improvement in
the matter of pavements, drains, and other public utilities became
manifest. Meanwhile, however, Toronto had far outstripped its sometime
rival. In 1824 the population of Toronto (then York) had been less
than 1700, while that of Kingston had been about 3000, yet in 1848
Toronto counted 23,500 inhabitants to Kingston's 8400. Still, Kingston
jogged along very comfortably, and Macdonald added steadily to his
reputation and practice. On September 1, 1843, he formed a partnership
with his quondam student Alexander Campbell, who had just been
admitted to the bar. It was not long before Macdonald became prominent
as a citizen of Kingston. In March 1843 he was elected to the city
council for what is now a portion of Frontenac and Cataraqui wards.
But a higher destiny awaited him.

The rebellion which had broken out in Lower Canada and spread to the
upper province, while the future prime minister was quietly applying
himself to business, had been suppressed. In Upper Canada, indeed, it
had never assumed a serious character. Its leaders, or some of them at
any rate, had received the reward of their transgressions. Lord Durham
had come to Canada, charged with the arduous duty of ascertaining the
cause of the grave disorders which afflicted the colony. He had
executed his difficult task with rare skill, but had gone home
broken-hearted to die, leaving behind him a report which will ever
remain a monument no less to his powers of observation and analysis
than to the clearness and vigour of his literary style.[1] The union
of Upper and Lower Canada, advocated by Lord Durham, had taken place.
The seat of government had been fixed at Kingston, and the experiment
of a united Canada had begun.

[Footnote 1: The question of the authorship of Lord Durham's Report is
one which all Canadians have heard debated from their youth up. No
matter who may have composed the document, it was Lord Durham's
opinions and principles that it expressed. Lord Durham signed it and
took responsibility for it, and it very naturally and properly goes
under his name. But in a review or my _Memoirs of Sir John Macdonald_
the _Athenæum_ (January 12, 1895) said; 'He,' the author, 'repeats at
second hand, and with the incorrectness of those who do not take the
trouble to verify their references, that Lord Durham's report on
Canada' was written by the nobleman whose name it bears. 'He could
easily have ascertained that the author of the report which he
commends was Charles Buller, two paragraphs excepted which were
contributed by Gibbon Wakefield and R. D. Hanson.' Some years later,
however, in a review of Mr Stuart Reid's book on Lord Durham, the same
_Athenæum_ (November 3, 1906) observed; 'Mr Reid conclusively disposes
of Brougham's malignant slander that the matter of Lord Durham's
report on Canada came from a felon (Wakefield) and the style from a
coxcomb (Buller). The latter, in his account of the mission,
frequently alludes to the report, but not a single phrase hints that
he was the author.']

We have seen that Macdonald, at the outbreak of the rebellion,
hastened to place his military services at the disposal of the crown.
On the restoration of law and order we find his political sympathies
ever on the side of what used to be called the governor's party. This
does not mean that at any time of his career he was a member of, or in
full sympathy with, the high Toryism of the 'Family Compact.' In those
days he does not even seem to have classed himself as a Tory.[2] Like
many moderate men in the province, Macdonald sided with this party
because he hated sedition. The members of the 'Family Compact' who
stood by the governor were devotedly loyal to the crown and to
monarchical institutions, while the violent language of some of the
Radical party alienated many persons who, while they were not Tories,
were even less disposed to become rebels.

[Footnote 2: 'It is well known, sir, that while I have always been a
member of what is called the Conservative party, I could never have
been called a Tory, although there is no man who more respects what is
called old-fogey Toryism than I do, so long as it is based upon
principle' (Speech of Hon. John A. Macdonald at St Thomas, 1860).]

The exacting demands of his Radical advisers upon the governor-general
at this period occasionally passed all bounds. One of their grievances
against Sir Charles Metcalfe was that he had ventured to appoint on
his personal staff a Canadian gentleman bearing the distinguished name
of deSalaberry, who happened to be distasteful to LaFontaine. In our
day, of course, no minister could dream of interfering, even by way of
suggestion, with a governor-general in the selection of his staff. In
1844, when the crisis came, and Metcalfe appealed to the people of
Canada to sustain him, Macdonald sought election to the Assembly from
Kingston. It was his 'firm belief,' he announced at the time, 'that
the prosperity of Canada depends upon its permanent connection with
the mother country'; and he was determined to 'resist to the utmost
any attempt (from whatever quarter it may come) which may tend to
weaken that union.' He was elected by a large majority.

In the same year, the year in which Macdonald was first elected to
parliament, another young Scotsman, likewise to attain great
prominence in the country, made his _début_ upon the Canadian stage.
On March 5, 1844, the Toronto _Globe_ began its long and successful
career under the guidance of George Brown, an active and vigorous
youth of twenty-five, who at once threw himself with great energy and
conspicuous ability into the political contest that raged round the
figure of the governor-general. Brown's qualities were such as to
bring him to the front in any labour in which he might engage. Ere
long he became one of the leaders of the Reform party, a position
which he maintained down to the date of his untimely death at the
hands of an assassin in 1880. Brown did not, however, enter parliament
for some years after the period we are here considering.

The Conservative party issued from the general elections of 1844 with
a bare majority in the House, which seldom exceeded six and sometimes
sank to two or three. Early in that year the seat of government had
been removed from Kingston to Montreal. The first session of the new
parliament--the parliament in which Macdonald had his first seat--was
held in the old Legislative Building which occupied what was
afterwards the site of St Anne's Market. In those days the residential
quarter was in the neighbourhood of Dalhousie Square, the old Donegana
Hotel on Notre Dame Street being the principal hostelry in the city.
There it was that the party chiefs were wont to forgather. That
Macdonald speedily attained a leading position in the councils of his
party is apparent from the fact that he had not been two years and a
half in parliament when the prime minister, the Hon. W. H. Draper,
wrote him (March 4, 1847) requesting his presence in Montreal. Two
months later Macdonald was offered and accepted a seat in the Cabinet.

Almost immediately after Macdonald's admission to the Cabinet, Draper
retired to the bench. He was succeeded by Henry Sherwood, a scion of
the 'Family Compact,' whose term of office was brief. The elections
came on during the latter part of December, and, as was very generally
expected,[3] the Sherwood Administration went down to defeat. In
Lower Canada the Government did not carry a single French-Canadian
constituency, and in Upper Canada they failed of a majority, taking
only twenty seats out of forty-two. In accordance with the more
decorous practice of those days, the Ministry, instead of accepting
their defeat at the hands of the press, met parliament like men, and
awaited the vote of want of confidence from the people's
representatives. This was not long in coming; whereupon they resigned,
and the Reform leaders Baldwin and LaFontaine reigned in their stead.

[Footnote 3: 'In '47 I was a member of the Canadian Government, and we
went to a general election knowing well that we should be defeated'
(Sir John A. Macdonald to the Hon. P. C. Hill, dated Ottawa, October
7, 1867).]

The events of the next few years afford a striking example of the
mutability of political life. Though this second Baldwin-LaFontaine
Administration was elected to power by a large majority--though it
commanded more than five votes in the Assembly to every two of the
Opposition--yet within three years both leaders had withdrawn from
public life, and Baldwin himself had sustained a personal defeat at
the polls. The Liberal Government, reconstituted under Sir Francis
Hincks, managed to retain office for three years more; but it was
crippled throughout its whole term by the most bitter internecine
feuds, and it fell at length before the assaults of those who had
been elected to support it. The measure responsible more than any
other for the excited and bitter feeling which prevailed was the
Rebellion Losses Bill. There is reason to believe that the members of
the Government, or at any rate the Upper-Canadian ministers, were not
at any time united in their support of the Bill. But the French
vehemently insisted on it, and the Ministry, dependent as it was on
the Lower-Canadian vote for its existence, had no choice. The Bill
provided, as the title indicates, for compensation out of the public
treasury to those persons in Lower Canada who had suffered loss of
property during the rebellion. It was not proposed to make a
distinction between loyalists and rebels, further than by the
insertion of a provision that no person who had actually been
convicted of treason, or who had been transported to Bermuda, should
share in the indemnity. Now, a large number of the people of Lower
Canada had been more or less concerned in the rebellion, but not
one-tenth of them had been arrested, and only a small minority of
those arrested had been brought to trial. It is therefore easy to see
that the proposal was calculated to produce a bitter feeling among
those who looked upon rebellion as the most grievous of crimes. It
was, they argued, simply putting a premium on treason. The measure was
fiercely resisted by the Opposition, and called forth a lively and
acrimonious debate. Among its strongest opponents was Macdonald.
According to his custom, he listened patiently to the arguments for
and against the measure, and did not make his speech until towards the
close of the debate.

Despite the protests of the Opposition, the Bill passed its third
reading in the House of Assembly on March 9, 1849, by a vote of
forty-seven to eighteen. Outside the walls of parliament the clamour
grew fiercer every hour. Meetings were held all over Upper Canada and
in Montreal, and petitions to Lord Elgin, the governor-general, poured
in thick and fast, praying that the obnoxious measure might not become
law. In Toronto some disturbances took place, during which the houses
of Baldwin, Blake, and other prominent Liberals were attacked, and the
Reform leaders were burned in effigy.

The Government, which all along seems to have underrated public
feeling, was so unfortunate as to incur the suspicion of deliberately
going out of its way to inflame popular resentment. It was considered
expedient, for commercial reasons, to bring into operation immediately
a customs law, and the Ministry took the unwise course of advising the
governor-general to assent to the Rebellion Losses Bill at the same
time. Accordingly, on April 25, Lord Elgin proceeded to the Parliament
Buildings and gave the royal assent to these and other bills. Not a
suspicion of the governor's intention had got abroad until the morning
of the eventful day. His action was looked upon as a defiance of
public sentiment; the popular mind was already violently excited, and
consequences of the direst kind followed. His Excellency, when
returning to his residence, 'Monklands,' was grossly insulted, his
carriage was almost shattered by stones, and he himself narrowly
escaped bodily injury at the hands of the infuriated populace. A
public meeting was held that evening on the Champs de Mars, and
resolutions were adopted praying Her Majesty to recall Lord Elgin. But
no mere passing of resolutions would suffice the fiercer spirits of
that meeting. The cry arose--'To the Parliament Buildings!' and soon
the lurid flames mounting on the night air told the horror-stricken
people of Montreal that anarchy was in their midst. The whole
building, including the legislative libraries, which contained many
rare and priceless records of the colony, was destroyed in a few
minutes.

This abominable outrage called for the severest censure, not merely on
the rioters, but also on the authorities, who took few steps to avert
the calamity. An eyewitness stated that half a dozen men could have
extinguished the fire, which owed its origin to lighted balls of paper
thrown about the chamber by the rioters; but there does not seem to
have been even a policeman on the ground. Four days afterwards the
Government, still disregarding public sentiment, brought the
governor-general to town to receive an address voted to him by the
Assembly. The occasion was the signal for another disturbance. Stones
were thrown at Lord Elgin's carriage; and missiles of a more offensive
character were directed with such correctness of aim that the
ubiquitous reporter of the day described the back of the governor's
carriage as 'presenting an awful sight.' Various societies, notably St
Andrew's Society of Montreal, passed resolutions removing Lord Elgin
from the presidency or patronage of their organizations; some of them
formally expelled him. On the other hand, he received many addresses
from various parts of the country expressive of confidence and esteem.
Sir Allan MacNab and William Cayley repaired to England to protest, on
behalf of the Opposition, against the governor's course. They were
closely followed by Francis Hincks, representing the Government. The
matter duly came up in the Imperial parliament. In the House of
Commons the Bill was vigorously attacked by Gladstone, who shared the
view of the Canadian Opposition that it was a measure for the
rewarding of rebels. It was defended by Lord John Russell, and Lord
Elgin's course in following the advice of his ministers was ultimately
approved by the home government.

As in many another case, the expectation proved worse than the
reality. The commission appointed by the Government under the
Rebellion Losses Act was composed of moderate men, who had the wisdom
to refuse compensation to many claimants on the ground of their having
been implicated in the rebellion, although never convicted by any
court. Had it been understood that the restricted interpretation which
the commission gave the Bill would be applied, it is possible that
this disgraceful episode in the history of Canada would not have to
be told.

An inevitable consequence of this lamentable occurrence was the
removal of the seat of government from Montreal. The Administration
felt that, in view of what had taken place, it would be folly to
expose the Government and parliament to a repetition of these
outrages. This resolve gave rise to innumerable jealousies on the part
of the several cities which aspired to the honour of having the
legislature in their midst. Macdonald was early on the look-out, and,
at the conclusion of his speech on the disturbances, in the course of
which he severely censured the Ministry for its neglect to take
ordinary precautions to avert what it should have known was by no
means an unlikely contingency, he moved that the seat of government be
restored to Kingston--a motion which was defeated by a large majority,
as was a similar proposal in favour of Bytown (Ottawa). It was finally
determined to adopt the ambulatory system of having the capital
alternately at Quebec and Toronto, a system which prevailed until the
removal to Ottawa in 1865.[4]

[Footnote 4: The dates of the first meetings of the Executive Council,
held at the various seats of government, from the Union in 1841 till
1867, are as follows: at Kingston, June 11, 1841; at Montreal, July 1,
1844; at Toronto, November 13, 1849; at Quebec, October 22, 1851; at
Toronto, November 9, 1855; at Quebec, October 21, 1859; at Ottawa,
November 28, 1865.]

The historic Annexation manifesto of 1849 was an outcome of the
excitement produced by the Rebellion Losses Act. Several hundreds of
the leading citizens of Montreal, despairing of the future of a
country which could tolerate such legislation as they had recently
witnessed, affixed their names to a document advocating a friendly and
peaceable separation from British connection as a prelude to union
with the United States. Men subsequently known as Sir John Rose, Sir
John Caldwell Abbott, Sir Francis Johnson, Sir David Macpherson,
together with such well-known citizens as the Redpaths, the Molsons,
the Torrances, and the Workmans, were among the number.

Macdonald, referring in later years to this Annexation manifesto,
observed:

    Our fellows lost their heads. I was pressed to sign it, but
    refused and advocated the formation of the British America League
    as a more sensible procedure. From all parts of Upper Canada, and
    from the British section of Lower Canada, and from the British
    inhabitants of Montreal, representatives were chosen. They met at
    Kingston for the purpose of considering the great danger to which
    the constitution of Canada was exposed. A safety-valve was found.
    Our first resolution was that we were resolved to maintain
    inviolate the connection with the mother country. The second
    proposition was that the true solution of the difficulty lay in
    the confederation of all the provinces. The third resolution was
    that we should attempt to form in such confederation, or in Canada
    before Confederation, a commercial national policy. The effects of
    the formation of the British America League were marvellous. Under
    its influence the annexation sentiment disappeared, the feeling of
    irritation died away, and the principles which were laid down by
    the British America League in 1850 are the lines on which the
    Conservative-Liberal party has moved ever since.

The carrying of the Rebellion Losses Bill was the high-water mark of
the LaFontaine-Baldwin Administration. In the following session
symptoms of disintegration began to appear. Grown bold by success,
the advanced section of the Upper-Canadian Radicals pressed for the
immediate secularization of the Clergy Reserves[5] by a process
scarcely distinguishable from confiscation. To this demand the
Government was not prepared to agree, and in consequence there was
much disaffection in the Reform ranks. This had its counterpart in
Lower Canada, where Louis Joseph Papineau and his _Parti Rouge_
clamoured for various impracticable constitutional changes, including
a general application of the elective principle, a republican form of
government, and, ultimately, annexation to the United States.

To add to the difficulties of the situation, George Brown, in the
columns of the _Globe_, which up to this time was supposed to reflect
the views of the Government, began a furious onslaught against Roman
Catholicism in general and on the French Canadians in particular. This
fatuous course could not fail to prove embarrassing to a Ministry
which drew its main support from Lower Canada.

[Footnote 5: That is, that the land set apart by the Constitutional
Act of 1791 'for the support and maintenance of a Protestant Clergy,'
amounting to one-seventh of all the lands granted, should be taken
over by the Government and thrown open for settlement.]

It was the time of the 'Papal Aggression' in England. Anti-Catholicism
was in the air, and found a congenial exponent in George Brown, whose
vehement and intolerant nature espoused the new crusade with
enthusiasm. It is difficult for any one living in our day to conceive
of the leading organ of a great political party writing thus of a
people who at that time numbered very nearly one-half the population
of Canada, and from whose ranks the parliamentary supporters of its
own political party were largely drawn:

    It would give us great pleasure to think that the French Canadians
    were really hearty coadjutors of the Upper-Canadian Reformers, but
    all the indications point the other way, and it appears hoping
    against hope to anticipate still; their race, their religion,
    their habits, their ignorance, are all against it, and their
    recent conduct is in harmony with these.[6]

[Footnote 6: _Globe_, 1851. For further instances see _Globe_,
February 9 and December 14, 1853; February 9, 18, 22 and November 5,
1856; August 7 and December 23, 1857.]

The Ministry could not be expected to stand this sort of thing
indefinitely. They were compelled to disavow the _Globe_, and so to
widen the breach between them and Brown.

In 1851 Baldwin and LaFontaine retired from public life. A new
Administration was formed from the same party under the leadership of
Hincks and Morin, and in the general elections that followed George
Brown was returned to parliament for Kent. The new Ministry, however,
found no more favour at the hands of Brown than did its predecessor.
Nor was Brown content to confine his attacks to the floor of the
House. He wrote and published in the _Globe_ a series of open letters
addressed to Hincks, charging him with having paltered away his
Liberal principles for the sake of French-Canadian support. To such
lengths did Brown carry his opposition, that in the general elections
of 1854 we find him, together with the extreme Liberals, known as
Rouges, in Lower Canada, openly supporting the Conservative leaders
against the Government.

While Brown was thus helping on the disruption of his party, his
future great rival, by a very different line of conduct, was laying
broad and deep the foundations of a policy tending to ameliorate the
racial and religious differences unfortunately existing between Upper
and Lower Canada.[7] To a man of Macdonald's large and generous mind
the fierce intolerance of Brown must have been in itself most
distasteful. At the same time, there is no doubt that George Brown's
anti-Catholic, anti-French crusade, while but one factor among several
in contributing to the downfall of the Baldwin and Hincks Governments,
became in after years, when directed against successive
Liberal-Conservative Administrations, the most formidable obstacle
against which Macdonald had to contend.

[Footnote 7: 'To all Conservatives who cherish the memory of Sir John
Macdonald we bring the reminder that no leader ever opposed so sternly
the attempt to divide this community on racial or religious lines'
(_Globe_, November 10, 1900).

The _Globe's_ latter-day estimate of Sir John Macdonald recalls the
late Tom Reid's definition of a statesman--'a successful politician
_who is dead_.']

The result of the _Globe's_ propaganda amounted to this, that for
twenty years the Conservative leader found himself in a large minority
in his own province of Upper Canada, and dependent upon Lower Canada
for support--truly an unsatisfactory state of affairs to himself
personally, and one most inimical to the welfare of the country. It
was not pleasant for a public man to be condemned, election after
election, to fight a losing battle in his home province, where he was
best known, and to be obliged to carry his measures by the vote of his
allies of another province. It is therefore not to be wondered at that
Sir John Macdonald in his reminiscent moods sometimes alluded to these
days, thus:

    Had I but consented to take the popular side in Upper Canada, I
    could have ridden the Protestant horse much better than George
    Brown, and could have had an overwhelming majority. But I
    willingly sacrificed my own popularity for the good of the
    country, and did equal justice to all men.[8]

[Footnote 8: To a friend, dated Ottawa, April 20, 1869.]

Scattered throughout his correspondence are several references of a
similar tenor. I do not believe, however, that the temptation ever
seriously assailed him. Indeed, we find that at every step in his
career, when the opportunity presented itself for showing sympathy
with the French Canadians in their struggle for the maintenance of
their just rights, he invariably espoused their cause, not then a
popular one. At the union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1841 there
seems to have been a general disposition to hasten the absorption of
the French-Canadian people, so confidently predicted by Lord Durham.
That nobleman declared with the utmost frankness that, in his opinion,
the French Canadians were destined speedily to lose their distinctive
nationality by becoming merged in the Anglo-Saxon communities
surrounding them, and he conceived that nothing would conduce so
effectually to this result as the union of Upper and Lower Canada. His
successor, Lord Sydenham, evidently shared these views upon the
subject, for his Cabinet did not contain a single French Canadian. In
furtherance of this policy it was provided in the Union Act (1840)
that all the proceedings of parliament should be printed in the
English language only. At that time the French Canadians numbered more
than one-half the people of Canada, and the great majority of them
knew no other language than French. No wonder that this provision was
felt by them to be a hardship, or that it tended to embitter them and
to increase their hostility to the Union. Macdonald had not sat in
parliament a month before the Government of which he was a supporter
proposed and carried in the House of Assembly a resolution providing
for the removal of this restriction. During the ensuing two years the
same Government opened negotiations (which came to nothing at the
time) with certain leaders among the French Canadians looking towards
political co-operation, and similar though equally fruitless overtures
were made to them during the weeks following Macdonald's admission
into the Draper Cabinet. This policy Macdonald had deliberately
adopted and carried with him into Opposition.

In a letter outlining the political campaign of 1854, he says in so
many words:

    My belief is that there must be a material alteration in the
    character of the new House. I believe also that there must be a
    change of Ministry after the election, and, _from my friendly
    relations with the French_, I am inclined to believe my assistance
    would be sought.[9]

[Footnote 9: See Pope's _Memoirs of Sir John Macdonald_, vol. i, p.
103.]

Meanwhile the cleavage in the Reform ranks was daily becoming wider.
Indeed, as has been said, the Radical section of the Upper-Canadian
representation, known as the Clear Grit party, were frequently to be
found voting with the Conservative Opposition, with whom they had
nothing in common save dislike and distrust of the Government. The
result of the elections of 1854 showed that no one of the three
parties--the Ministerialists, the Opposition, or the Clear Grits and
Lower-Canadian Rouges combined--had an independent majority. Upon one
point, however, the two last-named groups were equally determined,
namely, the defeat of the Government. This they promptly effected by a
junction of forces. The leader of the regular Opposition, Sir Allan
MacNab, was 'sent for.' But his following did not exceed forty, while
the defeated party numbered fifty-five, and the extreme Radicals about
thirty-five. It was obvious that no Ministry could be formed
exclusively from one party; it was equally clear that the government
of the country must be carried on. In these circumstances Sir Allan
resolved upon trying his hand at forming a new Government. He first
offered Macdonald the attorney-generalship for Upper Canada, and,
availing himself of his young ally's 'friendly relations with the
French,' entered into negotiations with A. N. Morin, the leader of the
Lower-Canadian wing of the late Cabinet. Morin consented to serve in
the new Ministry. The followers of MacNab and Morin together formed a
majority of the House. The French leader, however, was most anxious
that his late allies in Upper Canada--Sir Francis Hincks and his
friends--should be parties to the coalition. Hincks, while not seeing
his way to join the new Administration, expressed his approval of the
arrangements, and promised his support on the understanding that two
of his political friends from Upper Canada should have seats in the
new Government. This proposal was accepted by MacNab, and John Ross
(son-in-law of Baldwin) and Thomas Spence were chosen. The basis of
the coalition was an agreement to carry out the principal measures
foreshadowed in the speech from the throne--including the abolition of
the Seigneurial Tenure[10] and the secularization of the Clergy
Reserves.

[Illustration: SIR ALLAN NAPIER MACNAB

From a portrait in the John Ross Robertson Collection, Toronto Public
Library]

[Footnote 10: The seigneurial system was a survival of the French
régime. The reader is referred to _The Seigneurs of Old Canada_ by
Professor Munro in the present Series.]

Such was the beginning of the great Liberal-Conservative party which
almost constantly from 1854 to 1896 controlled the destinies of
Canada. Its history has singularly borne out the contention of its
founders, that in uniting as they did at a time when their
co-operation was essential to the conduct of affairs, they acted in
the best interests of the country. For a long time there had not been
any real sympathy between the French Liberal leaders, LaFontaine and
Morin, and the Liberals of Upper Canada. After the echoes of the
rebellion had died away these French Liberals became in reality the
Conservatives of Lower Canada. The _Globe_ repeatedly declared this.
Their junction with MacNab and Macdonald was therefore a fusion rather
than a coalition. The latter word more correctly describes the union
between the Conservatives and the Moderate Reformers of Upper Canada.
It was, however, a coalition abundantly justified by circumstances.
The principal charge brought against the Conservative party at the
time was that in pledging themselves to secularize the Clergy Reserves
they were guilty of an abandonment of principle. But in 1854 this had
ceased to be a party question. The progress of events had rendered it
inevitable that these lands should be made available for settlement;
and since this had to come, it was better that the change should be
brought about by men who had already striven to preserve the rights of
property acquired under the Clergy Reserve grants, rather than by
those whose policy was little short of spoliation. The propriety and
reasonableness of all this was very generally recognized at the time,
not merely by the supporters of MacNab and Macdonald, but also by
their political opponents. A. A. Dorion, the Rouge leader, considered
the alliance quite natural. Robert Baldwin and Francis Hincks both
publicly defended it, and their course did much to cement the union
between the Conservatives and those who, forty years after the events
here set down, were known to the older members of the community as
'Baldwin Reformers.'




CHAPTER II

MIDDLE LIFE


THE Liberal-Conservative Government formed in 1854 was destined to a
long and successful career, though not without the usual inevitable
changes. Very shortly after its accession to power, Lord Elgin, whose
term of office had expired, was succeeded by Sir Edmund Head. The new
governor-general was a man of rare scholastic attainments. During the
previous seven years he had occupied the position of lieutenant-governor
of New Brunswick, and he was to administer, for a like period, the
public affairs of Canada acceptably and well. One thing, however,
greatly interfered with his popularity and lessened his usefulness. A
story was spread abroad that Sir Edmund Head had called the French
Canadians 'an inferior race.' This, though it was not true, was often
reiterated; and the French Canadians persisted in believing that Sir
Edmund had made the remark--even after an explanation of what he
really did say.

Early in 1855 Morin retired to the bench. His place in the Cabinet was
filled by George Étienne Cartier, member for Verchères in the
Assembly. Cartier had begun his political career in 1848 as a
supporter of LaFontaine, but he was one of those who followed Morin in
his alliance with the Conservatives. Now, on the withdrawal of his
chief, he succeeded, in effect, to the leadership of the
French-Canadian wing of the Government. The corresponding position
from the English province was held by John A. Macdonald, for it was no
secret at the time that Sir Allan MacNab, the titular leader, had seen
his best days, and leaned heavily upon his friend the attorney-general
for Upper Canada.

Under these circumstances were brought together the two men who for
the ensuing eighteen years governed the country almost without
intermission. During the whole of this long period they were, with but
one trivial misunderstanding, intimate personal friends. That Sir John
Macdonald entertained the warmest feelings of unbroken regard for his
colleague, I know, for he told me so many times; and Cartier's
correspondence plainly indicates that these sentiments were fully
reciprocated.

Sir George Cartier was a man who devoted his whole life to the public
service of his country. He was truthful, honest, and sincere, and
commanded the respect and confidence of all with whom he came in
contact. Had it not been for Sir George Cartier, it is doubtful
whether the Dominion of Canada would exist to-day. He it was who faced
at its inception the not unnatural French-Canadian distrust of the
measure. It was his magnificent courage and resistless energy which
triumphed over all opposition. Confederation was not the work of any
one person. Macdonald, Brown, Tupper--each played his indispensable
part; but assuredly not the least important share in the
accomplishment of that great undertaking is to be ascribed to George
Étienne Cartier.

[Illustration: SIR EDMUND WALKER HEAD

From the John Ross Robertson Collection, Toronto Public Library]

Other public men of the period claim our brief attention. Sir Allan
MacNab, the leader of the Conservative party, had had a long and
diversified experience. He was born at Niagara in 1798, and at an
early age took up the profession of arms. When the Americans attacked
Toronto in 1813, Allan MacNab, then a boy at school, was one of a
number selected to carry a musket. He afterwards entered the Navy and
was rated as a midship-man on board Sir James Yeo's ship on the
Great Lakes. MacNab subsequently joined the 100th Regiment under
Colonel Murray, and was engaged in the storming of Niagara. He was a
member and speaker of the old House of Assembly of Upper Canada, and
in 1841 was elected to the first parliament under the new Union. For
sixteen years he continued to represent Hamilton, serving during a
portion of the time as speaker of the Assembly. In 1860 he was elected
a member of the Legislative Council, and was chosen speaker of that
body a few months prior to his death in 1862. In 1854, as we have
seen, he was called upon, as the recognized leader of the Opposition,
to form the new Ministry. He thus became prime minister, an event that
caused some grumbling on the part of younger spirits who thought Sir
Allan rather a 'back number.' It has been charged against Sir John
Macdonald that he at the time intrigued to accomplish his old chief's
overthrow, but there is not a particle of truth in the statement. When
forming his plans for the general elections of 1854, Macdonald thus
wrote:

    You say truly that we are a good deal hampered with 'old blood.'
    Sir Allan will not be in our way, however. He is very reasonable,
    and requires only that we should not in his 'sere and yellow leaf'
    offer him the indignity of casting him aside. This I would never
    assent to, for I cannot forget his services in days gone by.[11]

[Footnote 11: See Pope's _Memoirs of Sir John Macdonald_, vol. i, p.
103.]

Sir Allan was a Tory of the 'Family Compact' school, which with
changed conditions was fast becoming an anachronism. He was at the
same time a loyal and faithful public servant.

MacNab retired from the premiership in 1856 and was succeeded by
Colonel (afterwards Sir) Étienne Taché, who had held Cabinet office
continuously since 1848. Taché was a more moderate man than Sir Allan,
without his ambition or intractability; but he does not appear to have
been distinguished by any particular aptitude for public life, and the
prominence he attained was in large measure the result of
circumstance. He was, however, generally regarded as a safe man with
no private interests to serve, and he was quite content to allow
Macdonald and Cartier a free hand in the direction of public affairs.
Under their united guidance much was accomplished. During the first
session after the formation of the Liberal-Conservative party the two
great questions which had long distracted the united province of
Canada--the Clergy Reserves and the Seigneurial Tenure--were settled
on terms which were accounted satisfactory by all moderate and
reasonable men. Both the measures which the Government introduced to
adjust these matters were opposed at every stage by Brown, Dorion, and
other professed champions of the popular will.[12] Brown, who had
never forgotten the failure of the Conservative leaders to open
negotiations with him on the defeat of the Hincks Government, vented
his wrath alternately on the new Ministry and on the Roman Catholic
Church, assailing both with amazing violence. Despite this
unrestrained vehemence, impulsiveness, and lack of discretion, George
Brown's great ability and intellectual power made him a formidable
opponent, as the ministers learned to their cost.

[Footnote 12: Dorion voted for the third reading of the Seigneurial
Tenure Bill and against that relating to the Clergy Reserves. Brown
voted against the third reading of both measures, and the Clear Grits
and Rouges as a body did all in their power to impede the passage of
both bills.]

Meanwhile, as the different groups settled into their places,
political parties in the legislature became more clearly defined. The
French-Canadian ministerialists soon ceased to be regarded as anything
but Conservatives; and while many of the Upper-Canadian supporters of
the Government long continued to be known as 'Baldwin Reformers,' the
line of separation between them and their Conservative allies grew
fainter every day. It was inevitable that this should be so. Baldwin
himself had disappeared. Hincks had left the country. John Ross, the
leading member of the Liberal wing of the coalition, had resigned from
the Cabinet. So it came to pass, after the withdrawal of Sir Allan
MacNab, that many quondam Liberals grew to realize that there was no
longer any reason why they should not unite under the leadership of
the man who inspired equally the confidence and the regard of the
whole party.

All this was gall and wormwood to Brown, who pursued Macdonald with a
malignity which has no parallel in our happier times. Nor, it must be
confessed, did Macdonald fail to retort. Though not a resentful
person, nor one who could not control his feelings, he never disguised
his personal antipathy towards the man who had persistently and for
many years misrepresented and traduced him. On one occasion Macdonald
was moved to bring certain accusations against Brown's personal
character. These, however, he failed to establish to the satisfaction
of the special committee of parliament appointed to try the charge.
This was the only time, as far as I know, when Brown got the better of
his rival.

While the Liberal-Conservative forces were being consolidated under
Macdonald and Cartier, a similar process was taking place in the
Reform ranks under Dorion and Brown. Dorion was a distinguished member
of the Montreal bar and a courtly and polished gentleman of
unblemished reputation. He had become the leading member of the _Parti
Rouge_ on Papineau's retirement in 1854, and was now the chief of the
few French Radicals in the Assembly. In like manner Brown assumed the
leadership of the Clear Grits, the Radicals of Upper Canada.

While the politicians were thus busy, Canada continued to develop, if
not at the rate to which we are accustomed in these later days, still
at a fair pace. In 1851 the population of Upper Canada had been
952,000 and that of Lower Canada 890,000. Of the cities Montreal
boasted 58,000, Quebec 42,000, Toronto 31,000, and Kingston 12,000. By
1861 these figures had grown to 1,396,000 for Upper Canada, 1,111,000
for Lower Canada, and the cities had correspondingly increased.
Montreal had now 90,000 people, Quebec 51,000, Toronto 45,000, and
Kingston 14,000. The total revenue of Canada in 1855 amounted to
$4,870,000, not half that of the single province of Ontario to-day,
and the expenditure to $4,780,000.

Much had already been spent on the improvement of inland navigation,
and the early fifties saw the beginning of a great advance in railway
construction. The Intercolonial Railway to connect the Maritime
Provinces with Canada was projected as early as in 1846, though
inability to agree upon the route delayed construction many years. In
1853 the Grand Trunk was opened from Montreal to Portland in Maine.
The Great Western (now a portion of the Grand Trunk system), running
between the Niagara and Detroit rivers, was opened during the
following year; and 1855 witnessed the completion of the Grand Trunk
from Montreal to Brockville, and the Great Western from Toronto to
Hamilton. The Detroit river at that time marked the western limit of
settlement in Canada. North and west stretched a vast lone land about
which scarcely anything was known. The spirit of enterprise, however,
was stirring. The expiry of certain trading privileges granted to the
Hudson's Bay Company in 1838 offered the occasion for an inquiry by a
committee of the Imperial House of Commons into the claims of the
company to the immense region associated with its name. The Canadian
Government accepted an invitation to be represented at this
investigation, and in the early part of the year 1857 dispatched to
England Chief Justice Draper as commissioner. The committee, which
included such eminent persons as Lord John Russell, Lord Derby, and Mr
Gladstone, reported to the effect that terms should be agreed upon
between the company and the Imperial and Canadian governments, in
order that the territory might be made available for settlement; but
no further steps were then taken. The question was not to be settled
until some years later.

About the same time certain adventurous spirits approached the
Canadian Government with a suggestion to build a railway across the
prairies and through the Rocky mountains to the Pacific ocean. From
Sir John Macdonald's papers it appears that a proposal of this nature
was made to him in the early part of 1858. There is a letter addressed
to Macdonald, dated at Kingston in January of that year, and signed
'Walter R. Jones.' In the light of subsequent events this letter is
interesting. The writer suggests that the time has arrived to organize
a company to build a railway 'through British American territory to
the Pacific.' It would be some years, of course, before such a company
could actually begin the work of construction; therefore action should
begin at once. Nothing will be gained by delay, the writer points out;
and if Canada does not seize the golden opportunity, it is probable
that the United States will be first in the field with such a railway,
'as they are fully alive to the great benefit it would be to them, not
only locally, but as a highway from Europe to China, India, and
Australia.' This would greatly lessen the value of a Canadian and
British railway, and would cause the enterprise to 'be delayed or
entirely abandoned.' Thus Canada would lose, not only the through
traffic and business of the railway, but also the opportunity to open
up the Great West to settlers, 'which of itself would be a great boon
to Canada.'

The letter proceeds to say that, as the claims of the Hudson's Bay
Company to the lands of the West are shortly to be extinguished, the
railway company could secure the grant of a harbour on Vancouver
Island and the privilege of 'working the coal mines there'; also, 'a
grant of land along the proposed line of railway.' A subsidy should be
obtained from the Imperial Government for 'a line of steamers from
Vancouver Island to China, India, and Australia.' If the Canadian
people would take up the matter with spirit and buy largely of the
stock, and if the subject were laid before the merchants of London,
'there would be no difficulty in raising the required capital, say
£15,000,000.' There can be no doubt that the line would pay. Any one
looking at a map of the world can see that it would afford the
shortest route between Europe and the East. The writer thinks that it
would be well to start the nucleus of a company immediately so as to
apply for a charter at the next session of the Canadian parliament.
'Of course,' he adds, 'in my humble circumstances it would be the
height of folly to think of attempting to organize or connect myself
with such a vast undertaking unless I could get the countenance and
support of some one in high standing.' Macdonald, however, deemed the
proposal premature until the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company were
disposed of. He was destined to carry it out many years later.

The question as to the seat of government proved in those days
extremely troublesome, promising to vie with the now happily removed
Clergy Reserves question, in frequently recurring to cause difficulty.
The inconvenience of the ambulatory system under which the legislature
sat alternately four years at Quebec and four years at Toronto was
acknowledged by everybody, but it seemed impossible to agree upon any
one place for the capital. Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, and Kingston all
aspired to the honour, and the sectional jealousies among the
supporters of the Ministry afforded periodical opportunities to the
Opposition, of which they did not fail to take advantage. One
ministerial crisis arising out of this dispute acquired exceptional
prominence by reason of the fact that it led to what is known in
Canadian history as the 'Double Shuffle.'

In the session of 1857 the Ministry proposed to submit the question to
the personal decision of the queen, and introduced resolutions in the
Assembly praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to
exercise the royal prerogative by the selection of some one place as
the permanent capital of Canada. This reference to Her Majesty was
fiercely opposed by the Clear Grits as being a tacit acknowledgment of
Canada's unfitness to exercise that responsible government for which
she had contended so long. The _Globe_, in a series of articles,
denounced the 'very idea as degradation.' The motion was nevertheless
carried by a substantial majority, and the address went home
accordingly.

The harvest of 1857 proved a failure, and in the autumn of that year
Canada passed through one of the most severe periods of financial
depression with which she has ever been afflicted. The period between
1854 and 1856 saw great commercial activity. Vast sums of money had
been spent in constructing railways. This outlay, three bountiful
harvests, and the abnormally high prices of farm products caused by
the Crimean War, combined to make a period of almost unexampled
prosperity--a prosperity more apparent than real. The usual reaction
followed. Peace in Europe, coinciding with a bad harvest in Canada,
produced the inevitable result. Every class and interest felt the
strain. Nor did the Ministry escape. It was at this gloomy period that
Colonel Taché, weary of office, relinquished the cares of state, and
Macdonald became first minister. Two days after the new Ministry had
taken office parliament was dissolved and writs were issued for a
general election. The main issues in this contest, both forced by
George Brown, were 'Representation by Population' and 'Non-sectarian
Schools'--otherwise No Popery. These cries told with much effect in
Upper Canada. 'Rep. by Pop.,' as it was familiarly called, had long
been a favourite policy with Brown and the _Globe_. By the Union Act
of 1840 the representation of Upper and Lower Canada in the Assembly
was fixed at eighty-four, forty-two from each province. At that time
Lower Canada had the advantage of population, and consequently a
smaller representation than that to which it would have been entitled
on the basis of numbers. But the French Canadians were content to
abide by the compact, and on that score there was peace. As soon,
however, as the influx of settlers into Upper Canada turned the
scale, the _Globe_ began to agitate for a revision o£ the agreement.
In the session of 1853 Brown condemned the system of equal
representation, and moved that the representation of the people in
parliament should be based upon population, without regard to any line
of separation between Upper and Lower Canada. On this he was defeated,
but with rare pertinacity he stuck to his guns, and urged his views
upon the Assembly at every opportune and inopportune moment. The
Macdonald-Cartier Government opposed the principle of representation
by population because it was not in accord with the Union Act. That
Act was a distinct bargain between Upper Canada and Lower Canada, and
could not be altered without the consent of both. On the school
question Macdonald took the ground that the clause granting separate
schools to Roman Catholics was in the Common School Act long before he
became a member of the government--having been placed there by Robert
Baldwin--and that it would be unfair and unjust arbitrarily to take
the privilege away. Moreover, he argued, on the authority of Egerton
Ryerson, a Protestant clergyman and superintendent of schools for
Upper Canada, that the offending clause injured nobody, but, on the
contrary, 'widens the basis of the common school system.'

This might be good logic, and inherently fair and just. All the same,
the _Globe_ conducted its campaign with such telling effect that three
ministers lost their seats in the general elections of 1857, and the
Clear Grits came out of the campaign in Upper Canada with a majority
of six or eight.

In Lower Canada there was a different result. The appeals to sectional
and religious prejudice, which wrought havoc in the ranks of the
ministerial supporters in the upper province, had a contrary effect
among the Rouges. Their alliance with the Clear Grit party wellnigh
brought their complete overthrow. Dorion himself was elected, but his
namesake J. B. E. Dorion, commonly known as _l'enfant terrible_, was
unsuccessful, as also was Luther H. Holton, the leading
English-speaking Liberal of the province. Other prominent Rouges such
as Papin, Doutre, Fournier, and Letellier were given abundant leisure
to deplore the fanaticism of George Brown. Cartier had the
satisfaction of coming to the assistance of his colleague with almost
the whole representation of Lower Canada at his back.

This brings us to the historic incident of the 'Double Shuffle.'
Shortly after the elections it became known that Her Majesty, in
response to the request of the legislature, had chosen Ottawa as the
seat of government. The announcement was somewhat prematurely made and
gave rise to a good deal of dissatisfaction. This manifested itself
when parliament met. In the early days of the session of 1858 a motion
was carried in the Assembly to the effect that 'in the opinion of this
House, the city of Ottawa ought not to be the permanent seat of
government of this province.' Thereupon the Ministry promptly
resigned, construing the vote as a slight upon Her Majesty, who had
been asked to make the selection. The governor-general then sent for
Brown and invited him to form a new Administration. What followed
affords an admirable illustration of the character of George Brown.
Though in an undoubted minority in a House fresh from the people, with
Lower Canada almost unitedly opposed to him, Brown accepted the
invitation of the governor-general. His only hope could have lain in a
dissolution, and Sir Edmund Head gave him to understand at the
outset, both verbally and in writing, that on this he must not count.
There are several examples in British political history, notably that
of Lord Derby in 1858 and Disraeli in 1873, where statesmen in
opposition, feeling that the occasion was not ripe for their purposes,
have refused to take advantage of the defeat of the Ministry to which
they were opposed. George Brown was not so constituted. Without
attempting to weigh the chances of being able to maintain himself in
power for a single week, he eagerly grasped the prize. Two days after
his summons he and his colleagues were sworn into office and had
assumed the functions of advisers of the crown. How accurately does
this headlong impetuosity bear out Sir John Macdonald's estimate of
the man![13]

[Footnote 13: 'The great reason why I have always been able to beat
Brown is that I have been able to look a little ahead, while he could
on no occasion forgo the temptation of a temporary triumph' (Sir John
A. Macdonald to M. C. Cameron, dated Ottawa, January 3, 1872).]

The inevitable happened, and that speedily. Within a few hours the
Assembly passed a vote of want of confidence in the new Ministry, and
Brown and his colleagues, having been refused a dissolution, were
compelled to resign. The governor-general sent for A. T. Galt, then
the able and popular member of the House from Sherbrooke in Lower
Canada. But Galt declined the honour. The formation of a new
Administration was then entrusted to Cartier, who, with the assistance
of Macdonald, soon accomplished the task. Thus came into power the
former Macdonald-Cartier Government, under the changed name of the
Cartier-Macdonald Government, with personnel very slightly altered.
Even this did not fill up the cup of Brown's humiliation. By their
acceptance of office he and his colleagues had vacated their seats in
the Assembly, and so found themselves outside the legislature for the
remainder of the session. Those members of the Cartier-Macdonald
Government, on the contrary, who had been members of the
Macdonald-Cartier Government, did not vacate their seats by reason of
their resumption of office. The Independence of Parliament Act of 1857
provided that:

    whenever any person holding the office of Receiver General,
    Inspector General, Secretary of the Province, Commissioner of
    Crown Lands, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Commissioner of
    Public Works, Speaker of the Legislative Council, President of
    Committees of the Executive Council, Minister of Agriculture, or
    Postmaster General, and being at the same time a member of the
    Legislative Assembly or an elected member of the Legislative
    Council, shall resign his office, and within one month after his
    resignation accept any other of the said offices, he shall not
    thereby vacate his seat in the said Assembly or Council.

These words are clear. Any member of a government could resign his
office and accept another within one month without vacating his seat
in parliament. Thirty days had not elapsed since Macdonald had held
the portfolio of attorney-general. There was, therefore, no legal
necessity for his taking the sense of his constituents on resuming it.
Elections no more in 1858 than now were run for the fun of the thing.
One technical objection alone stood in the way. The Act says that if
any member resign office, and within one month after his resignation
accept _any other_ of the said offices, he shall not thereby vacate
his seat in the Assembly. It says nothing about the effect of
accepting anew the office just demitted, though it seems only
reasonable to infer that, if the acceptance of a new office by a
minister did not call for a fresh appeal to his constituents, _a
fortiori_ neither would the mere resumption of an office whose
acceptance they had already approved. In the judgment of Macdonald and
several of his colleagues there was no legal impediment to the direct
resumption of their former offices, but a difference of opinion
existed on the point, and, in order to keep clearly within the law,
the ministers first accepted portfolios other than those formerly held
by them. Thus, Cartier was first sworn in as inspector-general and
Macdonald as postmaster-general. On the following day they resigned
these portfolios and were appointed respectively to their old offices
of attorney-general East and attorney-general West. Their colleagues
in the Macdonald-Cartier Government underwent a similar experience.

The 'Double Shuffle' proved a source of acute dissatisfaction to Brown
and his friends. The ministers were accused by them of having
perverted an Act of Parliament to a sense it was never intended to
bear. Their action in swearing to discharge duties which they never
intended to perform was characterized as little short of perjury. They
were, however, sustained both by parliament and in the courts.
Thirteen years later, no less a personage than Gladstone gave to the
proceeding the sanction of his great authority. In order to qualify
Sir Robert Collier, his attorney-general, for a seat on the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council, appointments to which were restricted
to judges, he nominated him a justice of the Court of Common Pleas, in
which Sir Robert took his seat, sat for a few days, resigned, and went
on the Judicial Committee.[14]

[Footnote 14: Gladstone stoutly defended the propriety of his course,
which had the assent of his whole Cabinet, and also the approval of
such great legal authorities as Lords Selborne and Hatherley. This
case of Sir Robert Collier is almost exactly on all fours with the
'Double Shuffle.' Gladstone did a similar thing a few months later in
the appointment of the Rev. Mr Harvey to the Rectory of Ewelme. See
Morley's _Life of Gladstone_, vol. ii, pp. 382-7. For further
explanation of the 'Double Shuffle,' see Pope's _Memoirs of Sir John
Macdonald_, vol. i, pp. 198-205.]

The year 1858 saw the beginnings of a movement in the direction of
Confederation. At an early period in the session Galt raised the
question in an interesting speech. When he joined the Ministry, as
inspector-general (finance minister), he again brought it forward.
During recess a delegation consisting of Cartier, Galt, and John Ross
proceeded to England with the object of discussing the subject with
Her Majesty's government.

The ranks of the Reform Opposition at this time included D'Arcy M'ee,
William M'Dougall, and many other strong debaters, among them John
Sandfield Macdonald, who had sat continuously in the Assembly since
the Union--for Glengarry until the general elections of 1857, and then
for Cornwall. At first he had been a Conservative, but he drifted into
the Liberal ranks and remained there until after Confederation,
despite periodic differences with George Brown. He opposed the
Confederation movement. But we must not anticipate his career further
than to say that his political attitude was at all times extremely
difficult to define. That he himself would not demur to this estimate
may be inferred from the fact that he was wont to describe himself, in
his younger days, as a 'political Ishmaelite.' Though born and bred a
Roman Catholic, he was not commonly regarded as an eminently devout
member of that Church, of which he used laughingly to call himself 'an
outside pillar.' The truth is that John Sandfield Macdonald was too
impatient of restraint and too tenacious of his own opinions to submit
to any authority. In no sense could he be called a party man.

Another member of the Opposition was the young man we have already
met as a student in Macdonald's law-office, afterwards Sir Oliver
Mowat, prime minister of Ontario. Mowat was of a type very different
to Sandfield Macdonald. He had been a consistent Reformer from his
youth up. After a heated struggle, he had been elected to parliament
for the South Riding of Ontario, in the general elections of 1857,
over the receiver-general J. C. Morrison. On this occasion the
electors were assured that the alternative presented to them was to
vote for 'Mowat and the Queen' or 'Morrison and the Pope.' Mowat at
once took a prominent position in the Liberal ranks, and formed one of
George Brown's 'Short Administration.'

Among those who first entered parliament at the general elections of
1857 were Hector Langevin and John Rose. The former was selected to
move the vote of want of confidence in the short-lived Brown-Dorion
Administration. Rose at that time was a young and comparatively
unknown lawyer of Montreal, in whom Macdonald had detected signs of
great promise. Earlier in the same year he had accompanied Macdonald
on an official mission to England. This was the beginning of a close
personal friendship between the two men, which lasted for more than
thirty years and had no little bearing on Rose's future. On returning
from England Macdonald appointed him solicitor-general for Lower
Canada. In the ensuing election Rose stood for Montreal, against no
less a personage than Luther H. Holton, and was elected. He was
destined to fill the office of Finance minister of Canada, to become a
baronet, an Imperial Privy Councillor, and a close friend of His
Majesty King Edward VII, then Prince of Wales. It was believed that
still higher marks of distinction were to be conferred upon him, when
he died in 1888. It was said that Sir John Rose owed much of his
success to the cleverness and charm of his wife. I have often heard
Sir John Macdonald speak of her as a brilliant and delightful woman of
the world, devoted at all times to her husband and his interests. This
lady was originally Miss Charlotte Temple of Vermont. Before becoming
the wife of John Rose she had been married and widowed. There had been
a tragic event in her life. This was related to me by Sir John
Macdonald substantially as I set it down here.

About the year 1840 there resided in Montreal a Mr and Mrs Robert
Sweeny, wellknown and popular society people. Among the military
officers stationed there was Major Henry J. Warde of the 1st Royals, a
friend of the Sweenys. One day an anonymous intimation was received by
Mr Sweeny to the effect that Major Warde was too attentive to his
wife. Shortly afterwards the Sweenys gave a dinner, in the course of
which a note, addressed to Mrs Sweeny, and a bouquet were brought in.
Sweeny, whose suspicions had become thoroughly aroused, demanded to
see the note. Mrs Sweeny refused, whereupon he took it from her by
force. The party broke up in confusion. Sweeny rushed to the officers'
mess, where Warde was dining. As he bounded up the stairs, the
officers, recognizing his step, called to him to join them in a glass
of wine. He entered the room, and going up to Warde then and there
publicly insulted him. The inevitable duel took place next morning,
and at the first shot Major Warde fell dead. Sweeny had to flee the
country. He escaped to St Albans, Vermont, where he died, it was said,
of remorse a few months later. What must have added poignancy to his
sufferings was the statement, afterwards made, that the whole affair
was a malicious plot, and that the fatal missive which caused all the
trouble was a forgery. Afterwards Mrs Sweeny returned to Montreal,
where she went into lodgings. About the same time a raw Scottish lad,
who had been teaching school in the county of Huntingdon, came to
Montreal to study law. There he met Mrs Sweeny, with whom he fell in
love, and they were married. This was John Rose, and Mrs Sweeny as
Lady Rose lived to adorn the society of the chief Canadian cities and
afterwards of London until her death in 1883.

The parliamentary record of the years immediately succeeding 1858 is
not particularly interesting. George Brown continued to fight for
representation by population with undiminished vigour, and although
both he and his Lower-Canadian colleague, Dorion, were defeated in the
general elections of 1861, he was gaining ground. The antagonism
between Upper and Lower Canada yearly became more tense, and there
were signs of the approach of that deadlock which was still in the
future.

An agreeable occurrence of the year 1860 was the visit of the Prince
of Wales to Canada. The occasion served to bring a truce to the
political warfare which was being waged with incredible bitterness
for twelve months in the year. The Government provided for the
entertainment of its royal guest and made John Rose master of the
ceremonies. It is probable that out of this circumstance grew the
royal friendship with which Sir John Rose was honoured in after years.

The year 1862 witnessed the defeat of the Cartier-Macdonald
Government. The immediate cause was a Militia Bill. The American Civil
War, and more particularly the _Trent_ affair of November 1861, drew
the attention of those in authority to the inadequate means of defence
in Canada. In December a general order was issued calling upon the
volunteer force to hold themselves in readiness for active service.
The civil administration of the militia was placed in charge of
Macdonald, and in January 1862 a commission was appointed with the
following instructions:

1st. To report a plan for the better organization of the department of
Adjutant-General of Militia.

2nd. To investigate and report upon the best means of organizing the
militia, and providing an efficient and economical system for the
defence of the province.

3rd. To prepare a bill or bills on the above subjects, to be
submitted to parliament at its next session.

The commission performed its duties with dispatch, and on April 25
Macdonald presented to parliament the fruit of its labours in the form
of a bill to promote the more efficient organization of the militia of
Canada. On the motion for the second reading he spoke at length
concerning the reasons which made this legislation necessary. The
measure had been carefully thought out, and was well adapted to the
requirements of the time. It entailed, however, the expenditure of a
large sum of money, and on this ground was unpopular with a certain
number of Cartier's followers. On May 20 the vote on the second
reading, which was taken without debate, resulted in the rejection of
the bill by a majority of seven. This defeat was entirely due to
defection among the Lower Canadians. Of the Upper-Canadian members the
Government had a majority of seven votes.

Cartier was succeeded as prime minister by John Sandfield Macdonald,
whose ally from Lower Canada was L. V. Sicotte. Sandfield Macdonald, a
steadfast opponent of the proposal of representation by population,
was, of course, eminently distasteful to George Brown. To the Rouges
this presented no difficulty. Dorion and his friends took office in
the new Government. The double-majority principle was laid down as a
binding rule. Its purport was that no Ministry should be held to
possess the confidence of parliament unless it could command a
majority from both the French and the English sections of Canada. The
rule speedily proved unworkable in practice. The Macdonald-Sicotte
Government was not of long duration. It had many difficulties to
contend with. A reconstruction of the Cabinet in May 1863 was followed
by a general election. This, however, did not improve matters for the
Government. The parties in the new House were almost equally divided.
The Ministry lingered on a few months, and, without waiting for a
formal vote of no confidence, at last resigned on March 21, 1864.

[Illustration: SIR ÉTIENNE PASCAL TACHÉ

From a portrait in the John Ross Robertson Collection, Toronto Public
Library]

The Liberal-Conservatives came back to office, though not to power,
under Sir Étienne Taché, who had received the honour of knighthood
since last we heard of him. In less than three months his Government
met defeat by a majority of two votes in the Assembly. Thus within
three years four Ministries had been defeated, and two general
elections had failed to break the deadlock which threatened to make
government impossible in Canada.

The man responsible above all others for this deplorable state of
things was he who for years past had not ceased in the columns of his
paper and from his place in parliament to set one section of Canada
against the other; who laboured to stir up racial and religious
strife; who habitually gave to the people of Upper Canada a distorted
view of the national characteristics and the religious belief of their
fellow-countrymen in Lower Canada. The result was that the Union
formed only twenty-three years before, the Union about which such high
hopes had been entertained, was on the point of breaking up. The
actual _impasse_ which had now been reached seems to have opened
George Brown's eyes to the effects of his course, and to have
convinced him that the time had arrived when a cessation of the old
feuds was absolutely necessary to the carrying on of the queen's
government in Canada. Impelled by a sense of patriotism and, we may
well believe, at the expense of his personal feelings, he now joined
hands with Macdonald and Cartier for the purpose of carrying the great
scheme of Confederation. This, and this alone, promised deliverance
from the unhappy deadlock that impeded the progress of the country.

Since there is promised a separate account of the great work of
Confederation in another volume of the present Series, I do not
propose to do more here than allude to it briefly. It is known that
immediately after the defeat of the Taché-Macdonald government in June
1864, Brown said to several supporters of the Administration, among
them Alexander Morris and John Henry Pope, that the present crisis
should be utilized to settle for ever the constitutional difficulties
between Upper and Lower Canada. He assured them of his willingness to
co-operate for this end. Macdonald quickly responded to the overture,
and the next day he and Galt met Brown in the St Louis Hotel, Quebec.
It is worthy of note that at this interview Macdonald and Galt
proposed, as a remedy for existing ills, a federal union of all the
British North-American provinces. Brown, on the other hand, while
theoretically commending the idea, did not regard it as within the
region of practical politics, but viewed its adoption as 'uncertain
and remote.' His remedy was 'Parliamentary Reform, based on
population, without regard to a separating line between Upper and
Lower Canada.' This was simply his old friend 'Representation by
Population' under another name. When assured that it would be
impossible to carry such a measure, Brown agreed that the Government
should negotiate for a confederation of all the provinces. If this
failed, they should then introduce the federal principle for Canada
alone, while providing for the future incorporation of the Maritime
Provinces and the North-West. On this understanding Brown, with two
Reform colleagues, Oliver Mowat and William M'Dougall, entered the
Cabinet. The members of the reorganized Government lost no time in
applying themselves to the great object of the coalition. It so
happened that, while Canadian statesmen were thus considering the
question of a union of British North America, the thoughts of public
men in the provinces by the Atlantic--Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and
Prince Edward Island--were turned in the direction of a union of these
provinces. A convention was about to meet at Charlottetown to discuss
the subject. The Canadian Government determined to take advantage of
this opportunity, and eight members of the Ministry repaired to
Charlottetown, where they were hospitably received and were invited
by the conference to express their views. They unfolded the benefits
to be derived from the larger scheme with such effect that the
conference agreed to adjourn and to reassemble at Quebec. The Quebec
Conference met on October 10, 1864, and continued in session until the
28th of the same month. The deliberations resulted in seventy-two
resolutions. These were adopted by the Canadian legislature at its
next session, and formed the basis of the deliberations of the
conference which assembled in the Westminster Palace Hotel, London, on
December 4, 1866, under the presidency of Macdonald, for the purpose
of drafting the British North America Act. These several steps,
however, were not reached without the overcoming of many obstacles.
The Rouge party led by Dorion was hostile to the whole project, as
were Sandfield Macdonald and a few Upper-Canadian Reformers. The
people of New Brunswick pronounced against the scheme at the polls
before the question had been laid before their legislature. The
legislature of Prince Edward Island emphatically declined a union
'which it believed would prove politically, commercially, and
financially disastrous to the rights and interests of its people.'
George Brown quarrelled with his colleagues and left the Cabinet which
thereafter experienced a renewal of his vehement opposition.[15]
Negotiations regarding reciprocity with the United States engaged the
attention of the Ministry during the early part of the year 1866.
Scarcely had they been disposed of when a series of Fenian attacks
along the Canadian frontier caused much concern, and added largely to
the cares of Macdonald, who as minister of Militia Affairs was at that
time responsible for the defence of the country. His labours were
incessant, his responsibility heavy, and his discouragements not a
few; but with inflexible determination and rare patience he eventually
surmounted all the difficulties, and on July 1, 1867, witnessed the
birth of the new Dominion. From that time forth the responsibilities
of his position, though greatly enlarged, were more easily borne. The
sense of dependence on one province for support was no longer felt.

[Footnote 15: If any one should doubt the ferocity of Brown's attacks
on the Ministry, and especially upon Sir John A. Macdonald, let him
turn up the _Globe_ files for that period--more particularly the issue
of September 5, 1866, which contained an attack so violent as to call
forth a protest from so staunch an opponent of the Conservative leader
as Alexander Mackenzie. I commend also to the curious the _Globe_ of
April 30, 1870.]

The enlargement of the arena and the inclusion of many new men of
marked ability into Canadian public life tended to assuage somewhat
the old-time bitterness of political strife. Perhaps more than all,
the unification of the office of prime minister came as an unspeakable
relief. From 1841 to 1867 the office of first minister was what might
be called in commission, that is to say, there was a prime minister
for each section of Canada. If an Upper Canadian were called upon to
form a Ministry, his chief colleague from Lower Canada shared with him
much of the authority, and also a good deal of the prestige and
honour, of the office. Were a Lower Canadian summoned, his principal
Upper-Canadian colleague was associated with him in the leadership of
the Government. Thus Canada had the administrations of Baldwin-LaFontaine,
Hincks-Morin, Taché-Macdonald, Macdonald-Cartier, Cartier-Macdonald,
and others. This dual authority was perhaps necessary at the time, but
it had been attended by many inconveniences, and the confederation of
the provinces afforded a fitting opportunity to bring it to an end.
The governor-general, Lord Monck, when confiding the duty of forming
the first Dominion Cabinet to Macdonald, addressed him in these terms:

    In authorizing you to undertake the duty of forming an
    administration for the Dominion of Canada, I desire to express my
    strong opinion that, in future, it shall be distinctly understood
    that the position of First Minister shall be held by _one_ person,
    who shall be responsible to the Governor General for the
    appointment of the other Ministers, and that the system of dual
    First Ministers, which has hitherto prevailed, shall be put an end
    to. I think this is of importance, not only with reference to the
    maintenance of satisfactory relations between the Governor General
    and his Cabinet, but also with a view to the complete
    consolidation of the Union which we have brought about.[16]

[Footnote 16: From the Viscount Monck to Mr John A. Macdonald, dated
London, May 24, 1867.]

On the first Dominion Day, Lord Monck announced that John A. Macdonald
had been created a Knight Commander of the Bath, and that Cartier,
Galt, Tilley, Tupper, Howland, and M'Dougall had been made Companions
of the same order. Cartier and Galt considered this recognition of
their services inadequate and declined to receive the decoration. A
good deal of feeling was aroused in Lower Canada among the French
Canadians at what was looked upon as a slight to the representative
man of their race. Cartier himself appears to have taken the matter
momentarily to heart, and is said to have shown a disposition to
attach some blame to Macdonald, who, of course, had nothing whatever
to do with it. It was this circumstance that gave rise to the stories,
echoes of which are heard even to-day, of dissensions between
Macdonald and Cartier. In the first flush of his natural
disappointment Cartier may have made use of some hasty expressions,
and thus lent colour to a report which had no serious foundation.
There never was any real breach between the two men. In order to allay
the soreness, Lord Monck obtained permission to offer Cartier a
baronetcy if Sir John Macdonald was agreeable. Sir John Macdonald at
once replied that he would be only too glad to see his colleague thus
honoured. Galt was made a K.C.M.G. at the same time, and thus the
affair was brought to a happy termination. This is the whole story. It
may be mentioned, as illustrating the simplicity of life during the
period, that when Sir George Cartier was created a baronet, he had to
borrow on his personal note the money to pay the necessary fees.

The general elections that came off shortly after the formation of the
Dominion went decisively in favour of the Government--except in Nova
Scotia. There it was otherwise. A violent and unreasoning opposition,
led by Joseph Howe, swept all before it. Of the Conservative
candidates in Nova Scotia, Sir Charles Tupper, then Dr Tupper, was the
only one who carried his constituency. The remaining eighteen,
including Adams Archibald, the secretary of state for the provinces,
suffered defeat. It speaks not a little for Charles Tupper's influence
in his native province that at the next general elections (in 1872)
these figures were reversed, the Conservatives carrying twenty out of
twenty-one seats. Macdonald and Tupper first met at the Confederation
negotiations in 1864. They were attracted to each other at first
sight, and formed an offensive and defensive alliance which was
terminated only by Macdonald's death twenty-seven years later.

No single event in Sir John Macdonald's career affords a more
admirable illustration of his strategic ability, delicate finesse, and
subtle power over men than his negotiations with Joseph Howe. Howe's
opposition to Confederation was of no ordinary kind. He had long been
a conspicuous figure in Nova Scotia, and was passionately devoted to
the interests of the province. He was incomparably the greatest
natural orator that British North America has ever produced. With the
enthusiastic support of the whole province he proceeded to England,
shortly after Confederation, and there, with all his great ability and
eloquence, he strove for repeal. His efforts proved unavailing. Tupper
was in England at the same time, not to argue the case for the
Dominion, but to afford the Imperial authorities full information upon
the subject. He and Howe returned on the same steamer. A few weeks
later Macdonald, Cartier, and certain of their colleagues paid a visit
to Halifax, where, as Macdonald naïvely records, they were received by
the members of the local government with 'sufficient courtesy.' A most
interesting correspondence afterwards took place between Macdonald and
Howe, with the result that early in the year 1869 Howe entered the
Dominion Cabinet as president of the Privy Council. He remained there
four years, and then retired to become the lieutenant-governor of Nova
Scotia, in which office he died shortly afterwards.

The first session of the Dominion parliament was saddened by the
assassination of Thomas D'Arcy M'Gee, one of the most gifted and
charming of men, within a stone's throw of the House of Commons. An
Irishman by birth, M'Gee in early life attached himself to the Young
Ireland party. He took part in the insurrection of Smith O'Brien, and
in consequence was obliged to flee the country. After some years spent
in the United States, he settled in Montreal, where he started a
newspaper. He speedily became a favourite with the Irishmen of that
city, and by their influence he was returned to parliament in 1857.
True to the national instinct, M'Gee began his political career as an
opponent of the Government. In 1862 he accepted a portfolio under John
Sandfield Macdonald, but he was dropped on the reconstruction of the
Cabinet in 1863, and then passed under the influence of John A.
Macdonald. The two speedily became, not merely political, but personal
friends. From 1864 to 1866 they were colleagues in the Taché-Macdonald
Administration. In 1865 M'Gee visited Ireland, and while there made a
speech in which he unsparingly denounced Fenianism, and besought his
countrymen to shun all connection with that odious conspiracy. From
that hour he was a marked man. M'Gee was shot from behind his back
while he was entering his lodgings in Ottawa, in the early morning of
April 7, 1868. Several persons were arrested for complicity in the
murder. One of them, Thomas Whalen, was found guilty and was executed
on February 11, 1869.

Shortly before the meeting of the first session of the first
parliament of the Dominion, Sir Alexander Galt, the minister of
Finance, suddenly resigned his portfolio and left the Government. His
action is supposed to have been in some way connected with the failure
of the Commercial Bank, which occurred about that time, but no one who
knew Sir Alexander Galt would waste time in seeking to account for his
actions, which often could only be accounted for by his constitutional
inconstancy. In saying this I do not for a moment wish to ascribe any
sordid or unworthy motive to Galt, who was a man of large and generous
mind and of high honour. He was, however, never a party man. He could
not be brought to understand the necessity for deferring sometimes to
his leader. That spirit of subordination without which all party
government becomes impossible was foreign to his nature. By some
impracticable persons this may be regarded as a virtue. At any rate,
in Galt's case it was a fact. As Sir John Macdonald once said of him,
'Galt is as unstable as water, and never can be depended upon to be of
the same mind for forty-eight hours together.'

Galt was succeeded as minister of Finance by Sir John Rose. Two years
later Rose gave up his portfolio to take up residence in London as a
member of the banking firm of Morton, Rose and Company. Circumstances
rendered it necessary that, to maintain the arrangement entered into
with Brown in 1864, Rose's successor should be an old-time Ontario
Liberal, and no suitable man possessing that qualification happened to
be available. But while Sir John Macdonald was casting about for a new
colleague, Sir Francis Hincks reappeared on the scene. In the interval
of fifteen years which had elapsed since Hincks left Canada he had
been governor of various of the West India Islands, and had returned
with a record of honourable service and the decoration of Knight
Commander of St Michael and St George. Scarcely had Sir Francis set
foot in Canada when Macdonald resolved that he should succeed Sir John
Rose. The offer was made and promptly accepted, and on October 9,
1869, Sir Francis Hincks was sworn of the Privy Council and appointed
minister of Finance. A great storm followed. The _Globe_ outdid itself
in denunciation of Sir John Macdonald, of Sir Francis Hincks, and of
everybody in the most remote way connected with the appointment.
Richard (afterwards Sir Richard) Cartwright, hitherto a traditional
Tory, took umbrage at the appointment of Hincks, and notified Sir John
Macdonald no longer to count upon his support, though he did not then
finally leave the Conservative party. Sir Alexander Galt also
announced his withdrawal from the party, and there was dissatisfaction
in other quarters. Respecting Galt's defection Sir John Macdonald
wrote:

    Galt came out, I am glad to say, formally in opposition and
    relieved me of the difficulty connected with him. His warm
    alliance with the Lower Canadian French rendered it necessary for
    me to put up with a good deal, as you know. But he is now finally
    dead as a Canadian politician. The correspondence between Cartier
    and himself, in which he comes squarely out for independence, has
    rung his death-knell, and I shall take precious good care to keep
    him where he is. He has seduced Cartwright away, and I have found
    out how it was managed. Cartwright and he formed at the Club last
    session a sort of mutual admiration society, and they agreed that
    they were the two men fit to govern Canada. Galt rubbed it in
    pretty strong, as I have occasion to know that he told him that I
    ought to have selected him (Cartwright) as your successor.[17]

[Footnote 17: To Sir John Rose, dated Ottawa, February 23, 1870.]

Despite Sir John's jaunty attitude at the time, the appointment of Sir
Francis Hincks could not be said to have fulfilled expectations. While
it disappointed Tory ambitions, it failed to strengthen the Reform
section supporting the Administration. Moreover, I infer from Sir
John's confidential letters of the time that Sir Francis was not quite
the square peg for the square hole.

    Hincks [wrote Sir John to his friend Rose in January 1872] is as
    suggestive as ever in financial matters, but his rashness (always,
    as you know, the defect of his character) seems to increase with
    his years, and, strange to say, he is quite a stranger to the
    popular opinion of Canada as it is. His Canada is the Canada of
    1850. For all that he is a worthy good fellow and has been
    successful in finance.

Upon the whole, I am inclined to view the taking up of Sir Francis
Hincks in 1869 as one of Sir John Macdonald's very few mistakes. I do
not go as far as to say he would have done better to have chosen Sir
Richard Cartwright, who was only thirty-three years of age at the
time, and who, as the president of the Commercial Bank, which had
failed only two years before, was just then an impossibility.[18]
Moreover, to be quite just to Sir Richard Cartwright, I must say that
I have never seen evidence to satisfy me that he expected to succeed
Sir John Rose. There is nothing in his letters preserved by Sir John
Macdonald to establish this. They disclose his opposition to Hincks,
but he nowhere says that he wanted the position for himself. It is
true that in the heat of debate Sir John more than once implied
something of the kind, and I am not aware that Sir Richard ever denied
the allegation, though it is quite possible he may have done so. There
is little doubt, however, that the selection of Sir Francis Hincks
caused Sir Richard Cartwright to abandon Sir John Macdonald. He did
not leave all at once. As late as the campaign which preceded the
general elections of 1872 he called himself an 'Independent,' and the
_Globe_ contemptuously classed him, in respect of certain votes he had
given in parliament which happened to be distasteful to Brown, as 'a
Tory and a corruptionist.' But from 1870 his name not infrequently
appears in the division list of the House of Commons among the
Opposition.

[Footnote 18: Not the smallest reflection upon Sir Richard
Cartwright's personal honour is sought to be conveyed here. Sir John
Macdonald himself had been connected with the same institution for
many years as shareholder, director, and solicitor, and its failure
did not compromise either of them. At the same time, it is obvious
that to appoint as Finance minister the president of a bank which had
recently closed its doors (no matter for what cause) would be to
invite criticism of the most caustic kind.]

The taking over of the North-West from the Hudson's Bay Company--a
troubled chapter in the early history of the Dominion--caused Sir John
Macdonald a great deal of concern. Looking back after the event, it
would seem that the difficulties experienced had their origin in three
main causes: first, the neglect of the Hudson's Bay Company to prepare
the settlers for the great change involved in the transfer of the
government of that vast region to Canada; secondly, the lack of
conciliation, tact, and prudence on the part of the Canadian surveyors
who were sent into the country in the summer of 1869; and, thirdly,
the injudicious course pursued by M'Dougall, who was sent to the
North-West as lieutenant-governor in anticipation of the actual
transfer to Canada. The Ottawa authorities appear to have omitted no
step which their scanty knowledge of that distant region might have
suggested. In September 1868 a delegation, consisting of Cartier and
M'Dougall, had visited England, and, after a series of untoward events
and much negotiation, had arrived at an arrangement under which the
Hudson's Bay Company agreed, in consideration of the sum of £300,000,
to surrender all their interest in the North-West to the crown, with
the reservation to the Company of one-twentieth of the fertile belt
and of 45,000 acres adjacent to its trading posts. In the following
September (1869) William M'Dougall was appointed lieutenant-governor,
but prior to that date Joseph Howe, the secretary of state for the
provinces, went to Fort Garry in order to prepare the way for the new
governor. Howe found the people largely uninformed as to the true
position of affairs, but he added that by 'frank and courteous
explanation' he had cleared the air a good deal, and that the future
would depend upon M'Dougall's tact, temper, and discretion. What
happened is well known--the bad handling of the situation by
M'Dougall, the insurrection of the half-breeds under Louis Riel, the
murder of Thomas Scott--and I shall not allude to these events further
than to say that they gave Sir John Macdonald the occasion of meeting,
for the first time, the future Lord Strathcona. It happened in this
way. When news of the outbreak on the Red River reached Ottawa, George
Stephen--between whom and Sir John Macdonald there existed a warm
friendship even then--wrote to Sir John to say that he thought he knew
a man well qualified to act as a peacemaker at Fort Garry if he would
undertake the mission. This was Donald A. Smith, chief factor of the
Hudson's Bay Company in Montreal. Armed with a letter of introduction
to Macdonald from Stephen, Smith went to Ottawa. I give three brief
extracts from Sir John's correspondence of the time.

    I was very glad to see Mr Smith, who seems a clever man; at the
    same time I am exceedingly disappointed at the apparent
    helplessness of the Hudson's Bay authorities. Mr Smith has nothing
    to suggest, and they seem to have been utterly neglectful at Red
    River of their duty in preparing the people for the change.[19]

        *   *   *   *   *

    Your friend Donald A. Smith is rather lucky. He will go up there
    on an important mission, will succeed beyond a doubt, and get a
    good deal of praise therefor.[20]

        *   *   *   *   *

    Smith left this morning with full powers and instructions. He
    seemed to think that he would be able to do good there. It would
    never have done for Colonel Wolseley to have gone with him. Smith
    goes to carry the olive branch, and were it known at Red River
    that he was accompanied by an officer high in rank in the military
    service, he would be looked upon as having the olive branch in one
    hand and a revolver in the other.[21]

[Footnote 19: From Sir John Macdonald to George Stephen, dated Ottawa,
December 1, 1869.]

[Footnote 20: From the same to the same, dated Ottawa, December 9,
1869.]

[Footnote 21: From the same to the same, dated Ottawa, December 13,
1869.]

Smith's mission, however, did not prove effective, and it became
necessary later to send Colonel (afterwards Lord) Wolseley with a
military expedition to the Red River. It may not be generally known
that after the troubles were over, Colonel Wolseley intimated his
willingness to accept the position of lieutenant-governor of the newly
created province of Manitoba. The appointment of a military man to the
civil office of lieutenant-governor was not, however, considered
expedient just then, and, fortunately for the future viscount, he was
passed over in favour of Adams Archibald.

Shortly after these events Sir John Macdonald, overcome by the
fatigues and responsibilities of his office, fell ill, and for several
months in the summer of 1870 the duties of the first minister were
discharged by Sir George Cartier. Scarcely had Sir John resumed his
tasks when he was appointed a member of the Joint High Commission--named
to adjust all differences between Great Britain and the United
States--which resulted in the Treaty of Washington, 1871. In another
volume I have related,[22] mainly in his own words, the story of his
strenuous fight for Canadian interests on that memorable occasion.
Few more interesting diplomatic memoirs were ever penned than the
pages in which Macdonald recounts from day to day his efforts to
discharge his duties to the Empire as Her Majesty's plenipotentiary,
and at the same time to protect and defend the special interests of
Canada. That he upheld Imperial interests was never questioned, but he
was accused by some of his political opponents at the time of having
done so at the expense of Canada. It was alleged that he had
sacrificed the fisheries to enable Her Majesty's government to come to
terms with the United States. In this, as in many other matters, time
has amply vindicated his course.

[Footnote 22: _Memoirs of Sir John Macdonald_, vol. ii, pp. 85-140.]

The treaty--in regard to which he had apprehensions--received the
sanction of the Canadian House of Commons by a vote of more than two
to one. At the ensuing general election the province of Nova
Scotia--the home of Canadian fishermen--ratified Macdonald's policy by
returning twenty members out of twenty-one in its support. It is clear
that he had not sacrificed Canadian interests, for when the Fishery
Articles were terminated in 1885, it was not by desire of Great
Britain or of Canada, but by the action of the United States.

The summer of 1871 was marked by the admission of British Columbia
into the Confederation. By the terms of this union Canada was pledged
to construct a railway to the Pacific within ten years. This was
strenuously objected to by the parliamentary Opposition. It was an
obligation, the Liberals said, that would press with crushing severity
upon the people of Canada. They argued that in contracting to build
the road in ten years the Government had committed Canada to an
undertaking greatly beyond its resources; indeed, to a physical
impossibility.

In December of the same year the Government in Ontario led by
Sandfield Macdonald was defeated in the legislature and compelled to
resign. An Administration, determinedly hostile to the Ottawa
Government, was formed at Toronto under Edward Blake. The Ontario
Orangemen were filled with anger at the brutal murder of Thomas Scott
by Louis Riel at Fort Garry and the failure of the Government at
Ottawa to seize the murderer. The anti-confederate feeling was still
strong in Nova Scotia. There was dissatisfaction over the appointment
of Sir Francis Hincks. In many quarters the Washington Treaty was
unpopular. All this hostility Macdonald had to face, as well as the
strenuous opposition of the Liberal party. It was under these untoward
circumstances that Sir John Macdonald advised the dissolution of the
House of Commons and appealed to the people in the summer of 1872. His
feelings on the eve of the battle are thus expressed in a letter to
Sir John Rose:

    I am, as you may fancy, exceedingly desirous of carrying the
    election again; not with any personal object, because I am weary
    of the whole thing, but Confederation is only yet in the gristle,
    and it will require five years more before it hardens into bone.

    It is only by the exercise of constant prudence and moderation
    that we have been able to prevent the discordant elements from
    ending in a blow-up. If good Constitutional men are returned, I
    think that at the end of five years the Dominion may be considered
    safe from being prejudiced by any internal dissension.[23]

[Footnote 23: From Sir John Macdonald to Sir John Rose, dated Ottawa,
March 5, 1872.]

The fight in Ontario proved very severe, as may be gathered from his
subsequent account:

    I had to fight a stern and up-hill battle in Ontario, and had I
    not taken regularly to the stump, a thing that I have never done
    before, we should have been completely routed. The chief ground of
    attack on the Government was the Washington Treaty, and our
    submitting to Gladstone's resolve not to press the Fenian claims.
    Added to this, of course, were all the sins of omission and
    commission that gather round an administration of so many years'
    duration as ours.

    I never worked so hard before, and never shall do so again; but I
    felt it to be necessary this time. I did not want a verdict
    against the treaty from the country, and besides, I sincerely
    believe that the advent of the Opposition, as it is now
    constituted, to power would greatly damage the future of
    Confederation. That Opposition has much deteriorated since you
    left Canada. Poor Sandfield is gone; Brown is out of public life,
    or rather out of Parliament; Blake, who is a gentleman by birth
    and education, has broken down in health; Dorion has all but
    retired from public life, and was elected against his will and in
    his absence; and the rest, with one or two exceptions, are a very
    inferior lot.[24]

[Footnote 24: To the Viscount Monck, dated Ottawa, October 11, 1872.]

In spite of Sir John's efforts the Government lost ground heavily. Sir
Francis Hincks suffered defeat in South Brant, and Sir George Cartier
in East Montreal. What Sir Richard Cartwright used to call 'the shreds
and patches of the Dominion'--the Maritime Provinces and British
Columbia--did very well for the Conservatives, but, taking it
altogether, it was plain that the Government had sustained a severe
check.

[Illustration: Age 57 1872]

The Opposition, alive to their improved chances, assembled in full
force at the session of 1873, under the leadership of Alexander
Mackenzie. In order to render more effective service to his party at
Ottawa, Edward Blake resigned office as prime minister of Ontario in
favour of Oliver Mowat. All along he had held a seat in the House of
Commons, for those were days of dual representation, when there was
nothing to prevent a man from sitting in both a provincial House and
the House of Commons. This several leading men did. It will be
readily understood, however, that the office of prime minister of
Ontario would materially interfere with the duties of a leading member
of the Opposition at Ottawa. With large reinforcements and a feeling
of confidence, the Opposition gathered for the fray, determined, if
possible, to compass the overthrow of the Macdonald Government.
Fortune favoured the design, for in the session of 1873 occurred what
has come to be commonly known as the 'Pacific Scandal.'

Briefly stated, the charge involved in the Pacific Scandal was this:
that the Government had corruptly granted to Sir Hugh Allan and his
associates the charter for the building of the Canadian Pacific
Railway, in consideration of a large sum of money supplied by him for
election purposes. In a letter addressed to Lord Dufferin, which has
been before the public for twenty years, Sir John Macdonald completely
answered this accusation.[25]

[Footnote 25: For the full text of this letter see Pope's _Memoirs of
Sir John Macdonald_, vol. ii, pp. 174-89. In it Macdonald points out:

1. That Canada was under bonds to construct a railway from (say)
Montreal to the Pacific.

2. That the House of Commons in the session of 1871, during his
absence in Washington, carried a resolution, at the instigation of the
Opposition, obliging the Government to build the road through the
agency of an incorporated company.

3. That two rival companies--one under Sir Hugh Allan in Montreal,
and the other under Mr David Macpherson in Toronto--were formed with
the object of securing the charter.

4. That the Government, with a view to removing the great sectional
jealousies which had developed between the provinces of Ontario and
Quebec, in relation to this matter, endeavoured to secure the
amalgamation of these two companies.

5. That while these negotiations were going forward, the general
elections of 1872 came on, and, among others, Sir Hugh Allan, as he
had done previously for many years, subscribed largely to the
Conservative election fund.

6. That Sir Hugh Allan was told before he subscribed a farthing that
his railway company would not get the privilege of building the
railway. He was informed that the work would only be entrusted to an
amalgamated company, under the terms of the Act passed in parliament;
that such amalgamation would be effected on terms fair to the
provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as agreed upon between the
representatives of the two rival companies, and that such amalgamation
would take place only after the elections.

7. That under the powers vested in them by the Act, the Government
issued a royal charter in which they gave the preponderance of
interest to the province of Ontario, according to population. They
gave a fair representation to every one of the other provinces, and of
the thirteen shareholders and directors of which the company was
composed, only one was the nominee or the special choice of Sir Hugh
Allan. The others were elected without the slightest reference to him;
some of them against his most strenuous opposition, and they included
three of the incorporators of the Ontario company, two of whom had
been directors in that company. In that charter there were no
advantages given, nor could they be given, by the Government.
Parliament had decided what the subsidy in money and land should be,
and that was given and no more.]

In the light of all that has happened in the last forty years, it is
difficult to repress a smile when reading the impassioned invectives
poured out upon Sir John Macdonald by his political opponents of that
day in connection with the Pacific Scandal. According to them he had
basely betrayed his country, selling her honour for filthy lucre; he
had shamefully prostituted his office; he was a great criminal for
whose punishment justice cried aloud, and much more to the same
effect. Yet every one who dispassionately considers the affair today
in its true perspective sees quite plainly that, however indiscreetly
he acted in his relations with Sir Hugh Allan, Sir John's sole
thought was for the advantage of Canada. In the face of great
difficulties he had carried Confederation, had pacified Nova Scotia,
had brought Manitoba, British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island into
the Union; and in order that this Union should abide, he was putting
forth all his energies for the construction of the great link that was
to hold the distant provinces together.

In all these matters he had to encounter at every step the rancorous
opposition of his political adversaries. It is, therefore, not
surprising that he attached much importance to the general elections
of 1872. He had no personal ambitions unfulfilled--he was weary of it
all--but he entertained a profound conviction that to confide the
destinies of Canada to men who, among other things, were opposing the
building of the Canadian Pacific Railway by every means in their
power, would be to undo the great work to which he had set his hand
and to disrupt the Confederation. 'With five years more,' he writes,
'I thought we might safely consider that the gristle had hardened into
bone, and that the Union had been thoroughly cemented.' And so we find
him, though far from strong, throwing himself with vigour into the
elections of 1872, and, his colleagues being everywhere hard pressed,
himself doing much that might better have been confided to others.
Every one knows, to use the expression of the late Israel Tarte, that
'elections are not made with prayers.' Every one knows, and it is mere
hypocrisy to disclaim the knowledge, that there are election funds in
both parties, to which wealthy friends of the respective parties are
invited to contribute. Sir John's mistake was in asking favours of a
man who at that time was seeking advantages from the Government. No
matter how sure he might be of his own rectitude, it was setting a
dangerous precedent for a weaker man, who might be placed in his
position, to follow. No doubt, too, he would have done better not to
have mixed himself up with money matters at all, though in acting as
he did he only followed the usual practice. In that day the leaders of
political parties in Canada personally solicited campaign funds.[26]
Macdonald took contributions from the rich men of his party--among
others from Sir Hugh Allan--to fight that party's battles. But there
was no barter. Sir Hugh Allan was, of course, playing his own game.
His motive is quite apparent. He wanted to build the Pacific Railway,
and was naturally interested in preventing the accession to power of
men opposed to the whole scheme as premature and beyond the resources
of the country.

[Footnote 26: At that very time George Brown was writing thus to a
leading banker in Toronto:

                             TORONTO, _August_ 15, 1872.

MY DEAR SIR,--The fight goes bravely on.... We have expended our
strength in aiding outlying counties and helping our city candidates.
But a big push has to be made on Saturday and Monday for the East and
West divisions.... We therefore make our grand stand on Saturday.
There are but half a dozen people that can come down handsomely, and
we have done all we possibly can do, and we have to ask a few
outsiders to aid us. Will you be one? I have been urged to write you,
and comply accordingly. Things look well all over the Province....
Things look bright in Quebec.--Faithfully yours,

                                                GEO. BROWN.]

What seems plain now was not so apparent forty years ago. The current
set in strongly against the Ministry. As Mr S. H. Blake would say,
'There was the sound of a going in the tops of the mulberry trees.'
There was a general feeling that the days of the Government were
numbered. The country was ripe for a change. The Conservatives had
been in office for nearly ten years consecutively, and people were
beginning to get a little tired of them. Men began to think that it
was time to give the other side a chance. Long periods of exclusion
from office of the representatives of nearly one-half the community is
not good for the Opposition, for the state, nor for the dominant party
itself. Sir John Macdonald, at a later period, seems to have
recognized this, for one of his letters, written to a friend on the
eve of the contest of 1887, contains the significant words, 'the
Government is too old.' It was not as old as was his Government at its
resignation in 1873. However that may be, amid shrieks of 'corruption'
the Administration of Sir John Macdonald bowed to public opinion, and
the Liberals at last got their chance.

In the general elections, which took place in the month of January
1874, the newly formed Mackenzie Government swept the country,
returning with a majority of seventyfive or upwards. Among the new
members was Mr (now Sir Wilfrid) Laurier.

Alexander Mackenzie, the prime minister, like his predecessor, was a
Scotsman by birth. Like Sir John Macdonald, too, he had emigrated to
Canada at an early age and had settled first at Kingston, subsequently
removing to Sarnia. In 1861 he entered parliament as member for
Lambton, and took rank from the first as a strong and effective
debater on the side of the Opposition. In office he proved a capable
administrator of unimpeachable integrity, with a remarkable capacity
for labour. It could not be said of him, however, that he possessed
the essential qualities of a leader. Not only was he destitute of that
mysterious personal attribute known as 'magnetism,' but he was
disposed to be arbitrary and dictatorial. His political supporters
respected and perhaps feared him, but it cannot be said that he was
popular among them.

Goldwin Smith was once driving a newly arrived English friend through
the streets of Toronto at the time Mackenzie was in the zenith of his
power. When passing Mackenzie's house he remarked the fact. 'And who
is Mr Mackenzie?' inquired the friend. 'Mr Mackenzie,' replied
Goldwin Smith, 'was a stonemason; _he is a stonemason still_.'

This, of course, was not fair. Mackenzie, despite his narrowness,
rigidity, faults of manner, and perhaps of temper, was an able man. No
fairer was Goldwin Smith's cynical observation that the alliance
between Macdonald and Brown in 1864 was 'as brief and perfidious as a
harlot's love'; but nobody--at any rate, no Canadian public man--ever
looked for fairness from Goldwin Smith, whose idea of independence
seemed to consist of being alternately unjust to each side. Both
sayings, however, are extremely clever, and both had sufficient truth
about them to give point at once to the author's malevolence and to
his wit.

A man of very different mould from that of the Liberal leader was his
nominal follower Edward Blake, one of the rarest minds that have
adorned the bar of Canada or of any other country. Blake was not
merely a great equity lawyer; he was, as well, a distinguished
authority on the principles of government. Viewed as intellectual
performances, his speeches in the Canadian House of Commons have never
been surpassed. But to his great gifts were joined great weaknesses,
among which may be set down an abnormal sensitiveness. He was
peculiarly susceptible to the daily annoyances which beset a public
man. So marked was this infirmity that men without a tithe of his
ability, but with a better adjusted nervous system, would sometimes
presume to torment him just for the fun of the thing. While he was
minister of Justice, political exigencies compelled Mackenzie to take
into his Cabinet a man who, by reason of his unsavoury political
record, was eminently distasteful to Blake. This man knew perfectly
well that the great lawyer was not proud of the association, but being
as thick-skinned as Blake was sensitive, he rather enjoyed his
colleague's discomfort. He was known to go into Blake's office on a
short winter's afternoon, and, standing with his back to the fire in a
free and easy attitude as though perfectly at home, to say, 'Well,
_mon cher collègue_' (here Blake would visibly writhe, to the equally
apparent delight of the intruder), 'I have called for you to come for
a walk with me.' 'My good sir,' Blake would tartly reply, 'I have work
here that will keep me for the next two hours.' 'But it will be dark
then,' objected the caller. 'Well, my good sir,' was the retort, 'we
can walk in the dark, I suppose'--which Blake would naturally much
prefer. Edward Blake's outward bearing was cold and unsympathetic. He
was often repellent to those desiring to be his friends. Intimates he
appeared to have none: he would not allow people to be intimate with
him. He would hardly even, when leader of the Opposition, accept the
co-operation of his supporters or allow them a share in his labours.
So exacting was his standard that he felt no one would do the work as
well as himself, and any one who proffered assistance was likely to
get a snub for his pains. Whenever he spoke in the House of Commons,
he so exhausted his subject that there was nothing left for his
followers to say--an impolitic course for a leader. Yet it was
impossible, such is the compelling power of genius, to withhold
admiration for that lonely and impressive figure whose external
bearing spoke so plainly of the intellectual force within. I had the
honour of only a slight personal acquaintance with Blake, yet I never
recall his memory without a tinge of sadness that so gifted a man
should not have accomplished more in the way of constructive
statesmanship. Before the age of forty he was prime minister of
Ontario, but within a twelvemonth he gave it up to devote his
attention to federal politics. When the Liberal party succeeded to
power in 1873, men thought that Blake's opportunity had at last
arrived, and it was learned with surprise that he had not taken a
portfolio in the new Administration. He had, however, a seat in the
Cabinet, but this he resigned within three months. In 1875 he
re-entered the Cabinet as minister of Justice. But, beyond writing a
few masterly dispatches on the pardoning power and obtaining certain
modifications in the governor-general's instructions in that regard,
he does not appear to have accomplished much during his tenure of
office. The bill establishing the Supreme Court, passed about this
time, was the work primarily of Sir John Macdonald, and was piloted
through the House of Commons by Telesphore Fournier, Blake's immediate
predecessor in the department of Justice. Early in 1878 Blake again
left the Cabinet, and he was not even in the country during the
elections of that year which overwhelmed his late colleagues. He
became leader of the Opposition after the retirement of Mackenzie in
1880, but resigned the post after his failure to carry the elections
of 1887. He afterwards went to Great Britain, and became a
Nationalist member from Ireland of the House of Commons. For fifteen
years his great talents lay obscured at Westminster in the shadows of
Parnell and Redmond. Broken in health, he finally returned to his
native country; but it was only to die.

But if Blake's mind was not of the constructive order, his critical
and analytical faculties were highly developed. Always effective,
often trenchant, sometimes cruel, his powers of sarcasm and invective
were unrivalled. Once, when a former minister of Inland Revenue, not
remarkable for his knowledge of the affairs of his department, had
proposed a resolution to the effect that a barrel should no longer be
considered a measure of capacity, Blake offered an amendment to the
effect that 'in future the office of Cabinet minister be no longer
considered a measure of capacity!' Again, in one of his orations
against the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, he prefaced a
minute and exhaustive narration of events connected with the
enterprise in these words; 'Mr Speaker, on the first of April--_a
fitting day_--in the year 1871,...' That was his estimate of the
project as late as the early eighties.

During Blake's period of office an old and faithful official of his
department, who rather prided himself upon his discrimination in the
use of words, wrote on a file of papers, 'Referred to the Minister for
his instructions.' When this came before Blake, he wrote underneath
the memorandum: 'My officers do not _refer_ matters to me; they
_submit_ them.--E.B.' It is due to Blake to say that, when leaving the
department, he called for this file and expunged these words with his
own hand.

Sometimes, however, he was in lighter vein, and, indeed, I have known
him to betray a transient gleam of humour. One day a letter, the
envelope addressed to Blake, was left at 'Earnscliffe,' Macdonald's
Ottawa residence. The letter inside, however, as appeared later, was
addressed to Sir John Macdonald. Ignorant, of course, of this fact,
Macdonald sent it to Blake, who returned it with this note:

                        COBOURG, _June_ 28_th_, 1889.

MY DEAR SIR,--Thanks for the mysterious package, which, however, I
return, perceiving that in this, as in some other cases, if I have a
better title to the shell, you have the better title to the oyster.

It is a curious example of the workings of the mind and of the
phraseology of a deaf mute. It is a sad sort of letter, and I intend
to write to Jones to enquire if anything can be done for the poor
creature. Yours faithfully,

                                                EDWARD BLAKE.

Here we get a glimpse of the really kind and generous heart that beat
under the chilling exterior of Edward Blake.

In the year 1875 there occurred in Montreal an event which caused a
good deal of ill-feeling between the English and French sections of
the population throughout the province of Quebec. This was the
epilogue of the famous Guibord case. Joseph Guibord was a member of a
society known as _L'Institut Canadien_. In 1858 the Roman Catholic
bishop of Montreal issued a pastoral letter exhorting the members of
this institute to purge their library of certain works regarded as
immoral, and decreeing several penalties, including deprivation of the
sacraments and refusal of ecclesiastical burial, in the event of
disobedience. The library committee returned a reply to the effect
that they were the judges of the morality of their books, and,
further, that there were no immoral works in their library. The
matter appears to have lain dormant for some years. In 1865 several
members of the Institute, including Guibord, appealed to Rome against
the action of the bishop, but in vain. Shortly afterwards Guibord
died, and as he had adhered to his membership in the Institute despite
the bishop's _mandement_, ecclesiastical burial was refused. His widow
had recourse to the law, and ultimately the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council ordered the burial of Guibord's remains in the Roman
Catholic cemetery. The reasons upon which this judgment is based are
that the Church of Rome in the province of Quebec, while lacking some
of the features of an established church, differs materially before
the law from voluntary religious bodies; that certain privileges, such
as the right to collect tithes, secured to it by law, beget
corresponding obligations towards the laity. One obligation is to give
ecclesiastical sepulchre to its members. The proceedings against
Guibord had been legally insufficient to deprive him of this right; he
had not been excommunicated personally and by name, but merely lay
under a general excommunication.

The first attempts of Guibord's friends to bury the body in accordance
with this decision were frustrated by force; but on November 16,
1875, under a strong military escort, the remains of Joseph Guibord
were finally laid to rest in the Côte des Neiges cemetery, in the
presence of a sullen assemblage. This forcible, albeit legal,
proceeding was deeply felt by many who needed not to take lessons in
loyalty to the Queen from the members of the _Institut Canadien_, but
who could not see why the Church of Rome should be debarred the right,
supposed to appertain to every society, of determining its own
conditions of membership, nor understand why the friends of a man
should seek on his behalf, after his death, the ministrations of that
Church whose teachings, during his lifetime, he had voluntarily
despised.

The Liberal Government came to power in 1873 at a time of commercial
depression extending over the whole continent. Canada suffered
severely; and so did the Ministry. Business was bad, the revenues fell
off, employment became scarce. It was during this period that the
Conservative Opposition began the advocacy of what was called 'The
National Policy'--a system of modified protection which it was hoped
would both stimulate the industries of the country and provide a
sufficient revenue. Protection was no new policy with Sir John
Macdonald. As long before as in 1846 he had advocated it from his
place in parliament. In 1850 he belonged to an association which had
as one of its aims a 'commercial national policy.' In 1858 he was
joint-leader of a Government whose finance minister (Galt) announced
protection to native industries as its policy. In 1861 he at various
times and places expounded and developed this policy. Lastly, on the
eve of the general elections of 1872, he wrote to the present Lord
Mount Stephen:

    At the hustings in Western Canada [Ontario] and in all the
    constituencies except Toronto, the battle will be between free
    trade and a national policy.... It is really astonishing the
    feeling that has grown up in the West [he is referring to Western
    Ontario] in favour of encouragement of home manufactures.

In 1876 the time was opportune for promoting this policy. Trade was
depressed, manufactures languished, and the Canadian people as
producers only of raw material were fast becoming hewers of wood and
drawers of water for their more opulent neighbours in the United
States. On March 10 of that year Sir John Macdonald propounded to the
House of Commons his scheme for improving the commerce of the country.
His proposals were contemptuously received by the Government. The
prime minister, while admitting the serious character of the
depression then prevailing, attributed the cause wholly to
circumstances beyond their control, and denied the power of any
government to remove it by legislation. They would have nothing to do
with protection, which Mackenzie ridiculed as an attempt to relieve
distress by imposing additional taxation.

Sir John thought differently. If he had done nothing else, his
'National Policy' campaign would have stamped him as a leader of men.
In the words of a political opponent of the time, 'he constructed with
consummate skill the engine which destroyed the Mackenzie
Administration. From the very first he saw what a tactician would do
with Protection, and in so masterly a manner did he cover his troops
with that rampart, that it was impossible for the Liberals to turn
their flank.'

His political picnics in 1876 and 1877, and the enthusiasm he
everywhere aroused, were long remembered, and are not forgotten to
this day by older men. Everywhere crowds gathered to his support, and
the country impatiently waited the opportunity to restore him to his
old position at the head of affairs. At length the fateful day
arrived, and on September 17, 1878, the people of Canada declared by
an overwhelming majority for 'John A.' and protection. In the
preceding July Sir John had ventured a prophecy of the result--something,
by the way, he was extremely chary of doing. 'If we do well we shall
have a majority of sixty, if badly, thirty,' He had eighty-six.

It was observed that as far as possible the new ministers in the
Cabinet formed by Macdonald were taken from the ranks of his old
colleagues, from those who had suffered with him on account of the
'Pacific Scandal.' Sir George Cartier was dead, but Tilley and Tupper,
Langevin, Pope, Campbell, Aikins, O'Connor, and others of the 'Old
Guard' not hitherto of Cabinet rank, became members of the new
Administration, which was destined to last for thirteen years.

Lord Dufferin's term of office as governor-general was about to
expire. One of his last acts before leaving Canada was to send for
Macdonald to form the new Ministry. Sir John's relations with Lord
Dufferin had always been pleasant, though I think he considered the
governor-general a bit of a humbug. Speaking to me one day of men's
liking for flattery, Sir John said that 'almost anybody will take
almost any amount of it,' but he thought that Lord Dufferin
transgressed even those wide limits. 'He laid it on with a trowel.'
Sir John added that Lord Dufferin was proud of his classical
acquirements. He once delivered an address in Greek at the University
of Toronto. A newspaper subsequently spoke of 'His Excellency's
perfect command of the language.' 'I wonder who told the reporter
that,' said a colleague to the chief. 'I did,' replied Sir John. 'But
you do not know Greek.' 'No,' replied Sir John, 'but I know men.'

Lord Dufferin's successor in the office of governor-general was the
Duke of Argyll, at that time Marquess of Lorne, who spent five
interesting and, as the duke himself said more than once, pleasant
years in the Dominion. The personal relations between him and the
prime minister were always of the most agreeable description. The
story, published in Sir Richard Cartwright's _Reminiscences_, that Sir
John Macdonald was guilty on one occasion of rudeness to his royal
consort the Princess Louise is without a particle of foundation. It
was categorically denied by Her Royal Highness, and characterized as
'rubbish' by the duke in a cable to the Montreal _Star_. I have now
arrived at the stage in this narrative when I have personal knowledge
of everything upon which I write. I was Sir John Macdonald's private
secretary during the latter half of Lord Lorne's term of office, and I
positively assert that the relations between Government House and
Earnscliffe were of the most friendly character during the whole
period. Had there been the slightest truth in the story, it is
incredible that such relations should have existed.

The policy of protection which Sir John had offered to the people in
1878 was brought into effect during the session of 1879. So completely
was his promise fulfilled that the Liberal leader, Mackenzie, declared
that Sir John had 'gone the whole hog.' George Brown made a similar
admission.[27] Sir John Macdonald, it may be said, always carried out
his promises. I never knew him to fail. He was guarded in making them,
but if he gave an unconditional promise he was sure to implement it,
no matter at what inconvenience to himself. I have seen this
illustrated again and again. The late Sir Richard Cartwright--no very
friendly witness--observed in recent times, in his own characteristic
fashion: 'I will say this for that old scoundrel John A. Macdonald,
that if he once gave you his word, you could rely upon it.'

[Footnote 27: Senate Debates, 1879, p. 565.]

Sir John had not been long in power when death removed the most
implacable of his foes. On May 9, 1880, died George Brown, struck down
in his office by the bullet of an assassin. This shocking occurrence,
which was due to the act of a discharged printer, had no relation to
public affairs.

The fiscal policy having been settled, Sir John Macdonald again turned
his attention to the problem of a railway to the Pacific. The Liberal
Government, on the ground that the agreement with British Columbia to
build the road within ten years was impossible of fulfilment, had not
considered Canada bound by it, but had decided to build the railway,
not by means of a private company, but as a government work, and to
construct it gradually in sections as the progress of settlement and
the state of the public treasury might warrant. Sir John Macdonald
rejected this piecemeal policy, and resolved to carry out the
original scheme of a great national highway across the continent, to
be built as rapidly as possible so as to open up quickly the resources
of the Great West.

In the summer of 1880, accompanied by three of his colleagues--Tupper,
Pope, and Macpherson--Macdonald visited England for the purpose of
inducing capitalists to take hold of the enterprise. After much
negotiation they were successful, and on September 14, 1880, an
agreement for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was
signed in London. The company was to receive $25,000,000 and
25,000,000 acres of land in alternate blocks on each side of the
railway running from Winnipeg to Jasper House at the Rockies. The line
was to be completed by May 1, 1891, and the company was to deposit one
million dollars as evidencing its ability to carry out the bargain.
The contract was finally executed at Ottawa on October 21, 1880.
Parliament was then summoned in order to ratify what the Government
had done.

The contract was fiercely opposed. The Opposition denounced the terms
as extravagant, as beyond the resources of the country, and as
certain to involve financial disaster. Blake affirmed that the road
would never pay for the grease for the wheels of the engines that
would pass over it, and appealed to his fellow-members not to throw
the hard-earned money of the people of Canada 'down the gorges of
British Columbia.' A rival company was hurriedly got up which offered
to build the railway on much more moderate terms. The _bona fides_ of
this opposition company or 'syndicate' was much doubted, and, in any
event, the proposal came too late. The Government was bound to stand
by its bargain, which was defended with great power by Sir John
Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper, and others. At length, by a vote of 128
to 49, the House of Commons ratified the contract, which passed the
Senate a few days later, and became incorporated in an Act of
Parliament assented to on February 15, 1881.

Then began a period of railway construction hitherto unparalleled. At
the date of the signing of the contract the only portions of the main
line built were 152 miles from Fort William westward (the track was
laid, but the line was not completed) and 112 miles from Keewatin to
Selkirk--that is 264 miles. Mackenzie had declared the building of the
road within ten years to be a physical impossibility for Canada. He
even went so far as to affirm that the whole resources of the British
Empire could not construct the railway in ten years.[28] As a matter
of fact, it was built by Canada in less than five years. On November
7, 1885, Donald Smith drove the last spike at Craigellachie,
twenty-eight miles west of Revelstoke, British Columbia; and on the
24th of the following July, just fifteen years (including the five
lost years of the Mackenzie régime) after the engagement with British
Columbia was made, Sir John Macdonald arrived at Port Moody in the
car in which he had left Ottawa a few days before.

[Footnote 28: 'I now refer to the diplomatic blunder committed in
undertaking solemn engagements that the entire resources of the Empire
could not possibly implement.... You will see how unlikely it was that
that road, with all the power of man and all the money of Europe,
could have been completed in 1881' (Mackenzie at Sarnia, October 11,
1875).

Even after the completion of the C.P.R. the _Globe_ mocked at the
enterprise in this fashion: 'The iron band of Confederation has been
completed.... The salubrious Rocky and Selkirk ranges may now become a
summer resort for the fashionable and crowded populations situated
between Callander and Rat Portage. In short, the Canadian Pacific
Railway has been opened.... For our own part, we have not the
slightest doubt that the C.P.R. will be no less effective than the
N.P. in creating wealth for Canada.... This will be amply proved by
the spectacle of a railway 2500 miles long operated on the strength of
a traffic with about 150,000 people. Such a thing was never tried
before, and is unlikely ever to be tried again' (_Globe_, July 13,
1886).]

This marvellous feat was not accomplished without great exertions,
much anxiety, and the exercise of the highest arts of statesmanship.
The opposition to the granting of the charter had been so keen, the
arguments against the whole scheme had been so powerfully set forth,
that the company found they could not sell their lands, nor obtain, in
any other way, the money needed to carry forward the work. The
Government was obliged to come to the rescue, and, in the session of
1884, to grant a loan of $22,500,000 to the company. On December 1,
1883, Sir John Macdonald sent this telegram to Sir Charles Tupper, who
only a few months before had gone over to London to fill the position
of high commissioner: 'Pacific in trouble, you should be here.' Next
morning the characteristic reply was received: 'Sailing on Thursday.'
Sir Charles was as good as his word. With admirable courage, energy,
and resolution he fought the measure of relief through parliament, and
for a time at least all was well. But only for a time. Early in the
year 1885 we find Mr Stephen, the president of the company, writing
Sir John Macdonald:

    [There is] imminent danger of sudden crisis unless we can find
    means to meet pressing demands.... It is clear as noon-day, Sir
    John, that unless you yourself say what is to be done, nothing but
    disaster will result. The question is too big for some of our
    friends, and nothing but your own authority and influence can
    carry anything that will accomplish the object.... I endeavoured
    to impress upon him again [the finance minister] that the object
    of the present application to the Government is to save the _life_
    of the Company....

    I do hope something will be done to-day that will have the effect
    of saving the life of the Company. I stayed over here [Ottawa]
    to-day in case I might be wanted. It is impossible for me to carry
    on this struggle for life, in which I have now been for over four
    months constantly engaged, any longer. Although I have done my
    best to save the life and the honour of the Company, I cannot help
    feeling that I have failed to impress the Government with a full
    sense of the extreme urgency of the necessities of the Company,
    and yet I do not know anything further that I can say or do to
    enable the Government to realize the extreme gravity of the
    position in which the Company is now placed. If the Company is
    allowed once to go to the wall, the remedial measures proposed
    will be useless because too late. I shall be within reach if
    wanted. Mr Pope, your secretary, knows where to find me.

The following is part of a telegram from the general manager to the
president:

    Have no means paying wages, pay car can't be sent out, and unless
    we get immediate relief we must stop. Please inform Premier and
    Finance Minister. Do not be surprised, or blame me, if an
    immediate and most serious catastrophe happens.

The application referred to was for a further loan of $5,000,000. The
request was ill received by the Cabinet. Ministers were decidedly
averse to any further assistance out of the public treasury. The prime
minister was told that it could not be done. On the other hand, if it
were not done, irretrievable disaster stared Canada in the face. For
if the Canadian Pacific Railway went down, what of the future of the
North-West? what of the credit of Canada itself? This was perhaps the
supreme moment of Sir John Macdonald's career. With a divided Cabinet,
an unwilling following, and a hostile Opposition, it is no wonder that
even his iron resolution shrank from going to parliament with this
fresh proposal, which seemed an absolute confirmation of the
prophecies of his opponents. He had, I believe, almost if not
altogether, made up his mind that further assistance was impossible.
But he looked once again, and appreciated the herculean efforts that
his friends George Stephen and Donald Smith were making to avert the
ruin of the great enterprise, apparently tottering to its fall. He
realized what such a fall would mean to his country, to his party, and
to himself; and, summoning all his courage, he called a final Cabinet
council and placed the issue fully before his colleagues. The master
spirit prevailed.[29] One minister withdrew his resignation, and he
with other ministers abandoned their opposition. The ministerial
supporters in parliament, cheered and encouraged by the indomitable
spirit of their chief, voted the $5,000,000, and the road was carried
forward to completion. From that day all went well. Both loans were
speedily repaid by the company; and the Canadian Pacific Railway,
to-day the greatest transportation system in the world, was launched.

[Footnote 29: 'You don't, I think, give sufficient weight to the
troubles and difficulties which beset the Government, and you have
exaggerated our power--forgetting that we have a strong opposition and
a watchful press which charge us with being mere tools of the C.P.R.,
and not knowing that more than once we were deserted by our own
parliamentary friends in caucus, and that it was only my individual
power over them that enabled us on mote than one occasion to come to
your relief' (Sir John Macdonald to Sir George Stephen, dated August
1, 1890).]

It is the infelicity of statesmen that one difficulty is no sooner
overcome than another arises to take its place. And so it now
happened. In 1885 Louis Riel led an armed rebellion of half-breeds on
the banks of the Saskatchewan, as fifteen years earlier he had led one
on the banks of the Red River. The causes were similar. The
half-breeds were alarmed at the incoming of new life, and could not
get from the Government a title to the lands they occupied that they
regarded as secure. The rebellion was quickly crushed and Riel was
taken prisoner. This opened up a fresh chapter of embarrassments for
the Ministry. From the first there could be no doubt as to the course
which should be pursued with regard to the unfortunate man. His
offences of fifteen years before had been suffered to pass into
oblivion. Even his great crime--the atrocious murder of Thomas
Scott--had gone unwhipped of justice. His subsequent effrontery in
offering himself for election and attempting to take his seat in
parliament had been visited with no greater punishment than expulsion
from the House of Commons. Now he had suddenly emerged from his
obscurity in the United States to lead the half-breeds along the
Saskatchewan river in an armed revolt against the Government. At the
same time--and this was incomparably his worst offence--he had
deliberately incited the Indians to murder and pillage. He had caused
much bloodshed, the expenditure of large sums of money, and the
disturbance of an extensive region of the North-West.

Riel had been caught red-handed. Whatever excuses might be put
forward, on behalf of his unfortunate dupes, that the Government had
refused to heed their just demands, it is certain that Riel himself
could plead no such excuses, for he was not at the time even a
resident of the country. But, unfortunately, his case gave the
opportunity of making political capital against the Government. Since
he was of French origin the way was open for an appeal to racial
passions. The French-Canadian habitant, recalling the rebellion of
1837-38, saw in Riel another Papineau. A wretched malefactor, thus
elevated to the rank of a patriot, became a martyr in the eyes of many
of his compatriots. Sir John Macdonald fully realized the danger of
the situation, but from the first he was resolved, whatever the
political outcome, that if proved a culprit Riel should not a second
time escape. There should be a fair trial and no more clemency, but
rigorous justice, for the man who had added new crimes to the murder
of Scott fifteen years earlier. Four able lawyers, including Sir
Charles Fitzpatrick, the present chief justice of Canada, were
assigned to Riel's defence. The trial opened at Regina on July 20,
1885, and on August 1 Riel was found guilty of high treason and
sentenced to be hanged on September 18. In deference to those who
professed to doubt Riel's sanity, a stay of execution was granted. Sir
John Macdonald sent to Regina two medical men, who, with the surgeon
of the North-West Mounted Police, were instructed to examine into
Riel's mental condition. They reported that, except in regard to
certain religious matters on which he appeared to hold eccentric and
foolish views, he was quite able to distinguish between right and
wrong and that he was entirely responsible for his actions. On
November 16, 1885, Riel paid upon the scaffold the last penalty for
his crimes.

During Riel's imprisonment Sir John Macdonald received from him
several letters. From various other quarters he was informed of the
blasphemies, outrages, and murders of which Riel had been guilty.
There were many petitions, some for justice, others for mercy, chiefly
from people living in the eastern provinces. These, however, counted
for little, since for the most part they merely represented the
political or racial sympathies of the writers. But there are among
Macdonald's papers some original statements in respect to Riel of the
highest importance, from those of his fellow-countrymen who best knew
him. The Catholic missionaries living in the districts specially
affected by the rebellion--St Laurent, Batoche, and Duck Lake--in a
collective letter dated March 12, 1885, denounced in the strongest
language 'the miscreant Louis David Riel' who had led astray their
people. The venerable bishop of St Albert, while pleading for Riel's
dupes, had no word of pity for the 'miserable individual' himself.
Under date July 11, 1885, the bishop writes thus to Sir John
Macdonald:

    These poor halfbreeds would never have taken up arms against the
    Government had not a miscreant of their own nation [Riel],
    profiting by their discontent, excited them thereto. He gained
    their confidence by a false and hypocritical piety, and having
    drawn them from the beneficent influence of their clergy, he
    brought them to look upon himself as a prophet, a man inspired by
    God and specially charged with a mission in their favour, and
    forced them to take up arms.

Riel's own letters disclose no appreciation on his part of the
enormity of his offences, or of the grave peril in which he stood. The
whole collection produces a most unfavourable impression of the man,
and one rises from its examination with a wish that those who were
wont to proclaim Riel a patriot and hero could see for themselves what
manner of man he really was. The papers will ultimately find their
resting-place in the Dominion Archives and will become available to
future historians.

The political effect of the execution of Riel was quite in accordance
with Sir John Macdonald's expectations. In the province of Quebec the
greatest excitement prevailed. At many meetings the prime minister
and his French-Canadian colleagues were burned in effigy. Sir John had
postponed an intended visit to England until after the execution. So
intense was the popular feeling, that when the time came for sailing
he thought it prudent to avoid Montreal and Quebec and to board his
ship at Rimouski. This circumstance afforded material to the editor of
the _Mail_, Mr Edward Farrer, for an amusing article, bearing the
alliterative title, 'The Murderer's Midnight Mizzle, or the Ruffian's
Race for Rimouski.'

All this happened in November. In the preceding January Sir John had
taken part at Montreal in a magnificent demonstration to celebrate the
fortieth anniversary of his entrance into public life. If ever a
public man enjoyed the acclaim of the populace, the Conservative
chieftain did so on that occasion. If my memory serves me rightly, the
crowd took the horses out of his carriage and drew him in triumph from
the place of meeting to his hotel. Not quite ten months later, when
slipping almost secretly past Montreal, Macdonald alluded to this as
an apt illustration of the fickleness of public opinion. The immediate
consequence of this popular frenzy in Quebec was the defeat of the
Conservative Government of the province, the rise of Honoré Mercier,
the Liberal leader, to power, and the loss of many Conservative seats
in the subsequent Dominion elections. Indeed, Sir John Macdonald never
recovered his ground in the province of Quebec. Riel's execution
wrought organic political changes which are visible to this day.

The parliamentary opponents of the Government were naturally not slow
to take advantage of the situation, but their first move was
frustrated by Sir John Macdonald in a manner worthy to rank as a piece
of political strategy with the 'Double Shuffle' itself. At the first
available moment after the meeting of parliament in February 1886, the
member for Montmagny[30] moved this resolution: 'That this House feels
it its duty to express its deep regret that the sentence of death
passed upon Louis Riel convicted of high treason was allowed to be
carried into execution.' Scarcely were the words out of his mouth
before Sir Hector Langevin rose, anticipating Blake, the leader of the
Opposition, by a fraction of a second, and moved the 'previous
question,' thus shutting off all amendments, and compelling a vote to
be taken on the resolution as it stood. The Opposition had naturally
counted upon having an opportunity to present an amendment so framed
as to censure the Government for maladministration, without
categorically condemning the execution itself. In this design,
however, they were frustrated. Blake was completely outgeneralled, and
as Sir Hector had been fortunate enough to catch the speaker's eye
first, there was no help for it. Blake himself, his French-Canadian
supporters, and some others, voted for the condemnation of the
Government, but for some of the most prominent members of the
Opposition this was an impossibility. Many prominent Liberals--including
Mackenzie, Cartwright, Mulock, Paterson, Sutherland, Fisher, and
Davies--supported the Ministry against their own leader. By a vote of
146 to 52 the House rejected Landry's motion.

[Footnote 30: This was the Hon. P. Landry, the present speaker (1915)
of the Senate. He was a fast friend and supporter of Macdonald, but be
disapproved of the execution of Riel.]

Another important question of the time was the adoption of an Act for
the Dominion making a uniform qualification of voters. The British
North America Act laid down that, until the parliament of Canada
otherwise provided, the provincial laws relating to the qualification
to vote at elections should apply to elections for members of the
House of Commons. Since 1867 parliament had gone on using the
provincial lists of voters, but for some years Sir John Macdonald had
chafed under this anomaly. It seemed to him obvious that the
parliament of Canada should determine its own electorate, and that the
franchise should, as far as possible, be uniform throughout the
Dominion. The system in vogue, under which members of the House of
Commons were elected under half a dozen different systems, over which
parliament had no control, was in his opinion not merely abnormal, but
derogatory to the dignity of the superior body. In defence of this
system the practice in the United States was sometimes pointed to, but
in this matter there was no real analogy between Canada and the United
States. The American Union is in reality a federation of sovereign
states, of which Congress is the creation. This being the case, it is
not incongruous that these states should retain control over
congressional elections. But the Canadian provinces are not sovereign;
on the contrary, they are, in a real sense, subordinate to the central
government.

Sir John Macdonald had also observed, with ever-growing concern, a
disposition on the part of some of the provincial legislatures to
amend their electoral franchises in a democratic direction. Now, the
necessity of a property qualification for the right to vote was ever a
first principle with him--the central dogma of his political faith. He
said with much energy that no man who favoured manhood suffrage
without a property qualification had a right to call himself a
Conservative. Once, when Sir John was dwelling on his favourite
doctrine in the House of Commons, a member interrupted him to know if
he might ask a question. 'Certainly,' replied Sir John. 'Well,' said
the member, 'many years ago, during the gold fever, I went out to
California, and while there working in the diggings I acquired an
interest in a donkey. Under it I voted. Before the next election came
round the donkey died, and then I had no vote.... Who voted on the
first election, I or the donkey?' It was on the tip of Sir John's
tongue to retort that it didn't much matter which, but he forbore, and
merely joined in the general laughter.

In conformity with these views Sir John Macdonald introduced his
Electoral Franchise Bill in 1883, not with the object of carrying it
through parliament that session, but merely for the purpose of
placing it before the members. The same thing happened in 1884. But in
1885 the Bill was introduced in earnest. It provided, as far as
practicable, for a uniform qualification of voters throughout the
Dominion based on property, and also for the registration of voters by
revising officers to be appointed by the federal Government. The
measure encountered a desperate resistance from the Opposition. For
the first time in the parliament of the Dominion there was organized
obstruction. On one occasion the House of Commons sat from Thursday
afternoon until Saturday midnight, and although this record has since
been beaten, it was felt at the time to be a most trying experience.
Obstruction was naked and unashamed. Members read long passages from
_The Pilgrim's Progress_, or _Robinson Crusoe_, or any other work that
happened to appeal to them. One day--the passage is hopelessly buried
in Hansard and I cannot find it, but I remember the occasion very
vividly--Sir John rose at the opening of the day's proceedings and
addressed a few grave and measured words to the Opposition. Starting
with the remark that he could only suppose their extraordinary and
unparalleled conduct to be the outcome of a misapprehension as to 'my
supposed infirmities and my advancing years,' he told them that they
were vastly mistaken if they supposed they could tire him out by such
methods. He declared that as long as he, and those who acted with him,
enjoyed the confidence of the people, they did not intend to resign
their functions into the hands of the minority. He begged them, in
conclusion, to reflect upon the unwisdom of their course, 'lest what
has begun as a farce may end in a tragedy.'

These serious words did not appear to produce any immediate effect,
and the debates dragged on through the hot summer months. In the end,
however, patience and firmness prevailed, and the Franchise Act
reached the statute-book, where it remained until it was repealed
twelve years later by the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The
apprehensions of the Opposition with regard to the revising officers
were not realized. In Ontario these positions were offered to the
county court judges, or to the junior judges, and were accepted by
nearly all of them. In the province of Quebec, where there are no
county court judges, such appointments were not possible; but the law
provided that where the returning officer was not a judge, he must be
a barrister or notary of not less than five years' standing, and an
appeal in all cases lay from him to a judge. Sir John Macdonald
carefully supervised these appointments, which in the great majority
of cases were quite unexceptionable. The administration of the Act was
no doubt expensive. This was the strongest criticism heard against it;
but in the opinion of the Government of that day it was essential to
the idea of a united Dominion that the parliament of Canada should
determine and control the conditions of acquiring the right to vote
for members of its own House of Commons.

I should not omit to state that Sir John professed himself a believer
in the extension of the franchise to single women. Apparently he
considered that his advocacy of a property qualification required
this. I have heard him say, too, that women, as a whole, were
conservative, and he considered that their admission to the vote would
tend to strengthen the defences against the irruption of an unbridled
democracy. Whether these views would have stood the test afforded by
the present-day militant suffragettes, I am unable to say; for from
Sir John Macdonald the knowledge that there might be something even
more disastrous than an unrestrained male democracy was mercifully
withheld.

[Illustration: Age 68 1883]




CHAPTER III

OLD AGE


'WITH the Canadian Pacific Railway finished, and my Franchise Bill
become law, I feel that I have done my work and can now sing my _Nunc
dimittis_.'

So wrote Sir John Macdonald to Lord Carnarvon shortly after the close
of the arduous parliamentary session of 1885. There can be little
doubt that these words expressed his inmost sentiments at the time. He
had passed the allotted span of threescore years and ten, had 'sounded
all the depths and shoals of honour,' and was beginning to look
forward to a brief period of freedom from the cares of state before he
should be too old to enjoy it. His great work was done. The scattered
colonies had been united into a vast Dominion. The great North-West
and the Pacific province had been added and Canada now extended from
ocean to ocean, its several provinces joined together by iron bands.
The reader of these pages can form some idea of the difficulties, of
the labours, the anxieties, and the discouragements encountered in the
execution of this giant task; and also of the marvellous courage,
patience, and endurance which sustained the master builder throughout,
and eventually enabled him to triumph over all opposition. Small
wonder that Sir John Macdonald, with the consciousness of duty
faithfully performed, sometimes in later life yearned for that rest
which he was fated never to enjoy.

Party considerations forbade it. Macdonald's political friends could
not reconcile themselves to his retirement, and he, in turn, could not
make up his mind to abandon them. They declared that his withdrawal
meant the certain disintegration and consequent defeat of the great
party which he had built up, the party whose destinies he had so long
guided. There were, moreover, at this particular time special reasons
which rendered his controlling hand more than ever necessary. It was
no secret that the French-Canadian ministers, Langevin, Caron, and
Chapleau, were far from showing that spirit of mutual trust and
confidence which is supposed to exist among members of the same
Ministry. Sir Hector Langevin, the senior of the triumvirate, had
been the lieutenant of Cartier, but, in this instance, the mantle of
Elijah had not fallen upon his successor. In my experience I never met
a man who more neatly fulfilled Bismarck's cynical description of Lord
Salisbury--'a lath painted to look like iron.' He was a good
departmental officer--but he was nothing more. The moment Sir John
Macdonald's support was taken away, he fell. Yet Sir John stood by him
against the attacks of his opponents, and generally sided with him in
his differences with his colleagues.

During a holiday of 1888 Sir John said to me one day at Dalhousie,
N.B., where he was spending the summer: 'George Stephen keeps pressing
me to retire, and I think I shall. My only difficulty is about my
successor.' 'Whom do you think of as such?' I asked. 'Oh,' replied he,
'Langevin; there is no one else.'[31] 'Well,' I remarked, 'I have a
candidate--one who lives on the border line between the two provinces,
speaks both languages with facility, and is equally at home in Quebec
and Ontario.' 'Who is he?' 'Mr Abbott,' I replied. 'John Abbott,' said
Sir John incredulously. 'Why, he hasn't a single qualification for the
office. Thompson,' he went on, 'is very able and a fine fellow, but
Ontario would never endure his turning Catholic. No, I see no one but
Langevin.' Yet it was Abbott after all. When asked why he thought so
much of Langevin, the reply was at once forthcoming: 'He has always
been true to me.' The same thing might have been said of Sir Adolphe
Caron, ever a faithful supporter, and from his youth up, equally in
prosperity and adversity, a close personal friend of the old chief;
but Sir John thought that Caron sometimes allowed his personal
feelings to obscure his judgment, or, as he expressed it, 'Caron is
too much influenced by his hates--a fatal mistake in a public man, who
should have no resentments.' Sir Adolphe Chapleau, with all his
attractiveness and charm, Sir John never quite trusted. The relations
between these three French-Canadian ministers were hard to define. I
frankly confess that, with all my opportunities, I could never master
the intricacies of Lower-Canadian politics in those days. In the
beginning it seemed to be a case of Langevin and Caron against
Chapleau; later it sometimes looked as though Langevin and Chapleau
were making common cause against Caron; perhaps most often it
resembled a triangular duel. There was absolutely no difference
between those three men in respect of public policy, but the personal
jealousy and suspicion with which they regarded one another was
amusing.

[Footnote 31: It was commonly understood at this time that Sir Charles
Tupper, whose name would naturally first occur in this connection,
preferred to remain in England as high commissioner, and,
consequently, was not in the running.]

'Langevin,' said Sir John, 'on his way down to Quebec, cannot stop off
for lunch at Montreal, but Chapleau writes me that he is interfering
in his district, and if he leaves his house in Quebec for a walk down
John Street, Caron wires in cypher that a breach in the party is
imminent.' Langevin, on his part, was equally vigilant to resent the
encroachments, real or supposed, of his colleagues upon his domain,
and altogether Sir John had no pleasant time keeping the peace among
them.

In the English section of the Cabinet three vacancies had recently
taken place. Immediately after the close of the session of 1885
considerations of health compelled Sir David Macpherson to give up the
portfolio of the Interior. This in no sense interfered with the
personal and political friendship which had long existed between him
and his leader. Sir David, albeit over cautious and deliberate in his
methods, was a man of good judgment, and wholly animated by a desire
for the public good. His administrative record suffered from his
delays in settling the grievances of the half-breeds of the
North-West. This had afforded Riel the pretext for the second rising,
but how far responsibility in this matter properly attached to
Macpherson, I am not prepared to say.

Sir David Macpherson was succeeded in the office of minister of the
Interior by Thomas White, a well-known Conservative journalist of
Montreal, where he and his brother Richard conducted the Montreal
_Gazette_. For many years White had been a faithful exponent of
Conservative principles in the press. In his efforts to enter
parliament he had been singularly unfortunate. In 1867 he had been
defeated in South Wentworth by three votes; in 1874 in Prescott by six
votes; in 1875 in Montreal West by seven votes; and in the following
year in the same constituency by fifty votes. Finally, he was elected
in 1878 for the then existing electoral division of Cardwell, in the
province of Ontario. Seven years later he became a colleague of the
chieftain whose cause he had so long and so effectively promoted. To
the great grief of Sir John Macdonald, White died within three years
of taking office. Few statesmen of so great merit have experienced
such persistent ill fortune. Had he lived, he might not improbably
have become prime minister of Canada.

In the autumn of 1885 the minister of Finance, Sir Leonard Tilley,
resigned to become lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick. In another
volume I have alluded to his close friendship with Sir John Macdonald.
If White was an unlucky politician, assuredly the same cannot be said
of Sir Leonard Tilley. In 1867 he gave up the office of prime minister
of New Brunswick to enter the Dominion Cabinet; he remained minister
until a few days before the downfall of 1873, when he was appointed
lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick. This post he held throughout the
period when the Conservatives were in opposition (1873 to 1878). Upon
the return of the party to power in 1878, Tilley, having just
completed his term as lieutenant-governor, became minister of Finance.
After holding this office for seven years, he slipped back again into
the post of lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick. Sir Leonard's place
in the Cabinet was taken by Mr (now Sir) George E. Foster, whose
signal ability was thus recognized thirty years ago by Sir John
Macdonald.

In May 1884 Sir Charles Tupper relinquished the portfolio of Railways
and Canals in order to devote himself exclusively to the office of
high commissioner for Canada in London, to which he had been appointed
a year before. It is unnecessary to say that the withdrawal of Sir
Charles from the Cabinet, in which he had so long exercised a
commanding influence, proved a serious loss. Indeed, as the sequel
shows, his presence became so necessary that he had to return. Sir
John Macdonald's choice of a successor from Nova Scotia fell upon Mr
Justice (afterwards Sir John) Thompson, a brilliant man, who will
never be appreciated at his true worth because his term of office was
too short. The selection was at variance with Sir John's expressed
views on the inexpediency of judges leaving the bench to return to
political life, but it proved singularly happy, and in time Thompson
became prime minister. 'Thompson,' observed Macdonald, 'has just two
faults. He is a little too fond of satire, and a little too much of a
Nova Scotian.' It cannot be denied that, in spite of Thompson's great
ability, his point of view remained provincial to the end. In his
heart of hearts Nova Scotia rather than Canada ever held first place.
No more upright man ever breathed. He had a fierce intolerance of the
slightest departure from absolute rectitude. The case of a chief clerk
in the Civil Service, who had committed serious irregularities in
connection with the public funds, once came up before the Cabinet.
Thompson, always severe in such matters, considered that the gravity
of the offence called for dismissal, but to this Macdonald would not
consent, holding that reduction in rank to a first-class clerkship,
with corresponding loss of salary, would be sufficient punishment. It
was seldom that Macdonald, in the ordinary course of administration,
interposed his paramount authority as first minister, but, though the
Council as a whole rather inclined towards Thompson's view, Macdonald
insisted that the more merciful punishment should be imposed. Thompson
was angry, but said nothing more at the time. Not long afterwards a
third-class railway mail clerk, with a salary of $500 a year, got into
similar trouble. 'What shall be done with this man?' asked Macdonald
at the Council Board. There was a moment's pause, which was broken by
the bland suggestion from Thompson that, 'following precedent, he be
made a first-class clerk.'

Thompson had a caustic wit. A certain inventor of Toronto, who had
devised an ingenious means for safeguarding level railway crossings,
had long bombarded Sir John Macdonald with applications for Government
patronage. When Sir John became minister of Railways in 1889, the
inventor thought that his day had at last arrived. He went post-haste
to Ottawa, obtained the requisite permission, and installed his models
in a room belonging to the Railway department. One day Macdonald and
Thompson happened to come along the corridor going to Macdonald's
office. The inventor, who had been lying in wait, pressed them to step
aside for a minute and inspect his models. Sir John, seeing no escape,
said to his companion, 'Come along, Thompson, and let us see what this
fellow's got to show us.' Thompson hated mechanical contrivances, but
there was no way out of it, so he followed the chief. The delighted
inventor felt that he had at last realized his desire, and was in
great form. He volubly descanted on the frequent loss of life at level
crossings and proceeded to show his devices for lessening such
dangers. The day was piping hot and he had taken off his coat. He
rushed round the table and touched bells here and there, which caused
gates to close and open, semaphores to drop, and all sorts of things
to happen. As the ministers took their leave, Macdonald said to his
companion, 'Well, Thompson, what do you think of that chap?' 'I
think,' replied Thompson with great energy, 'that he deserves to be
killed on a level crossing.'

Once, while Lord Aberdeen was governor-general, Sir John Thompson was
dining at Government House on an evening in June when the mosquitoes
were unusually troublesome. Lady Aberdeen suggested the shutting of
the windows. 'Oh! thank you,' replied Sir John, 'pray don't trouble; I
think they are all in now!'

Sir Alexander Campbell was from youth intimately connected with Sir
John Macdonald--as a fellow-citizen of Kingston, as law student and
subsequently as partner in a legal firm, as a colleague for many years
in the government of the old province of Canada and afterwards in that
of the Dominion. Yet the two were never kindred spirits. Sir Alexander
Campbell was a Tory aristocrat, a veritable _grand seigneur_, of
dignified bearing and courtly mien. He made an excellent minister of
Justice, but he lacked that _bonhomie_ which so endeared Sir John
Macdonald to the multitude. I do not think that Sir John's
pre-eminence in that direction ever gave Sir Alexander much concern.
My impression is that he regarded the multitude as an assemblage of
more or less uninteresting persons, necessary only at election times;
and if Sir John could succeed in obtaining their votes, he was quite
welcome to any incidental advantages that he might extract from the
process. It was alleged by Sir Richard Cartwright that in the year
1864 a movement was started in the Conservative party with the object
of supplanting Macdonald and putting Campbell in his place, and that
Sir John never forgave Campbell for his part in this affair. Something
of the kind was talked about at the date mentioned, but the movement
proved a complete fiasco, and it is not at all clear that Campbell was
a consenting party to it. I doubt too the correctness of Sir Richard's
inference, for, leaving the 1864 incident out of account, there never
was the slightest political division between the two men. At the time
of the Pacific Scandal, Campbell behaved exceedingly well to his
chief. Yet, speaking of the period within my own knowledge--that is to
say, during the last ten years of Macdonald's life--while ever
externally friends, the two in their personal relations were
antipathetic. This may in part be ascribed to Campbell's dignified
love of ease and disinclination to join in the rough-and-tumble of
party politics. When elections were to be fought (I speak only of my
own time) Campbell, if he did not find that he had business elsewhere,
was disposed to look on in a patronizing sort of way. He seldom took
off his coat or even his gloves in the fight, but he always turned up
when the victory was won. Sir John resented this. Yet assuredly
Campbell had some merits, or Macdonald would not have kept him in
successive Cabinets. Sir Alexander was an ideal leader of the Senate,
and this qualification alone rendered him of much value. He was,
moreover, _par excellence_ the aristocrat of the Cabinet, and such a
type of public man is rare in Canada.

The antithesis of Sir Alexander Campbell was John Henry Pope, sometime
minister of Agriculture and later of Railways and Canals. Pope was a
man of small education and less culture, but of great natural ability,
and was gifted with remarkable political sagacity. Macdonald used to
say that Pope could have been anything he desired had he only received
a good education in his youth. He added that he had never known Pope's
judgment to be at fault. In times of stress and difficulty Pope was
the colleague of whom he first sought advice and counsel, and upon
whose rough good sense he implicitly relied. Pope died two years
before his chief, who never ceased to mourn his loss.

Another self-made colleague of the same stamp was Mr Frank Smith of
Toronto. Mr Smith was a member of the Cabinet from 1882 to 1891,
during which long period his keen business sagacity and sound common
sense were ever at his chief's disposal.

Sir Mackenzie Bowell, 'the best Minister of Customs I ever had,' was
another old-time friend and colleague for whom Sir John entertained a
high regard and respect. Sir Mackenzie's chief claims to prominence
are of a date subsequent to the day of Sir John Macdonald and
therefore do not fall within the compass of this work; but he is one
who in serene old age remains a connecting link with those stirring
times.

The pre-eminence of Sir Charles Tupper must not lead me to forget
that his son had the honour of being one of Sir John's colleagues in
the old chieftain's latter years. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper became a
Cabinet minister at thirty-two, the same age as that at which the
youthful John A. Macdonald had entered the Cabinet of Draper,
forty-one years before. During the years in which the younger Tupper
held the office of minister of Marine and Fisheries he made an
enviable record as an efficient and courageous administrator. I fancy
Sir John used sometimes to think that he was perhaps more particular
about the administration of patronage in his own department than in
those of his colleagues. One day, shortly after Mr Tupper (as he was
then) had become a minister, he sent a letter from some applicant for
office over to Sir John with the request that if possible he would do
something for the writer. Sir John took the letter, folded it,
endorsed it, 'Dear Charlie, skin your own skunks. Yours always, J. A.
M.D.,' and sent it back to the new minister; as much as to say, 'Now
that you have a department of your own, look after these people
yourself.'

Mr John Costigan was a member of Sir John Macdonald's Cabinet from
1882 till 1891. Shortly after the appearance of my _Memoirs of Sir
John Macdonald_, Mr Costigan publicly stated that I had made a mistake
in saying that Macdonald had not been in favour of Home Rule for
Ireland. Goldwin Smith declared, indeed, that Sir John Macdonald had
no settled convictions upon Home Rule, but was ever ready to
propitiate the Irish vote by any sacrifice of principle that might be
required. That Sir John reduced the original Home Rule resolutions
before the Dominion parliament in 1882 and 1886 to mere expressions of
contingent hope, such (to use Goldwin Smith's own words) 'as any
Unionist might have subscribed,'[32] and that Macdonald voted against
Mr Curran's substantive resolution in favour of Home Rule in 1887,
when he could not modify it, was as well known to Goldwin Smith as to
Mr Costigan. In addition, Goldwin Smith possessed indubitable
evidence, at first hand, of Sir John Macdonald's sentiments on the
subject of Home Rule. During the political campaign of 1886-87 Goldwin
Smith said some hard things of Sir John and the Conservative party. He
was at the same time attacking Gladstone very bitterly on his Home
Rule policy. Some weeks after the Canadian elections were over, Sir
John Macdonald visited Toronto, and stayed at the Queen's Hotel. Among
the visitors on the day of his arrival was Goldwin Smith, who, as he
entered the room, murmured something about the doubtful propriety of
making a social call upon one whom he felt it his duty to oppose in
the recent contest. Sir John Macdonald held out both hands saying, 'My
dear sir, I forgive you everything for your splendid defence of the
Empire,' alluding to his attacks on Home Rule. This remark and the
conversation which ensued made quite clear where Sir John Macdonald
stood on the question of Home Rule--a position which he never
compromised by any word or act. To assert the contrary implies a
charge of opportunism; but Goldwin Smith himself, when calmly
analysing Macdonald's character sixteen years after his death,
deliberately asserted that 'if he [Sir John] was partisan, he was not
opportunist.'[33] Goldwin Smith knew right well that Sir John
Macdonald was just as resolutely opposed as he was himself to the
establishment of a separate parliament in Dublin with an executive
responsible thereto.

[Footnote 32: Letter to _The Times_, September 1, 1886.]

[Footnote 33: _Weekly Sun_, April 17, 1907.]

On the evening of the day just mentioned Macdonald dined with Goldwin
Smith. As we drove to 'The Grange' Sir John asked me if I had ever
been there before. I had not. 'Well,' said he, 'you are going to a
very interesting house with a charming host, but notice Mr Smith's
habit of interlarding his otherwise agreeable conversation with
tiresome references to the nobility. Why, to hear him talk, you would
imagine he never consorted in England with anybody under the rank of
an earl.' Later that evening, as we went to the station to take our
train, Sir John said, 'Did you observe what I told you? That's why
Dizzy in _Lothair_ called him a social parasite. Strange that so
brilliant a man, who needs no adventitious aids, should manifest such
a weakness.'

In the autumn of 1886 Sir John Macdonald, accompanied by four of his
colleagues--Chapleau, White, Thompson, and Foster--made a tour of the
province of Ontario, towards the close of which he wrote thus to Sir
Charles Tupper:

    I am on my way back to Ottawa after a successful tour in Western
    Ontario. We have made a very good impression, and I think will
    hold our own in the Province. have, however, lost nearly the
    whole of the Catholic vote by the course of the _Mail_, and this
    course has had a prejudicial effect not only in Ontario but
    throughout the Dominion, and has therefore introduced a great
    element of uncertainty in a good many constituencies.

    In Nova Scotia the outlook is bad, and the only hope of our
    holding our own there is your immediate return and vigorous
    action. It may be necessary that you should, even if only for a
    time, return to the Cabinet. M'Lelan, I know, would readily make
    way for you. Now, the responsibility on you is very great, for
    should any disaster arise because of your not coming out, the
    whole blame will be thrown upon you.

    I see that Anglin is now starring it in Nova Scotia. I send you an
    extract from a condensed report of his remarks which appeared in
    the Montreal _Gazette_. This is a taking programme for the
    Maritime Provinces and has to be met, and no one can do it but
    yourself. But enough of Dominion politics.

    I cannot in conclusion too strongly press upon you the absolute
    necessity of your coming out at once, and do not like to
    contemplate the evil consequences of your declining to do so.

    I shall cable you the time for holding our election the moment it
    is settled.

That the general elections of 1887 were fought with exceeding
bitterness may be inferred from a paragraph in a leading Canadian
newspaper of the day:

    Now W. M. Tweed [the criminal 'boss' in New York] was an abler
    scoundrel than is Sir John Macdonald. He was more courageous, if
    possible more unscrupulous, and more crafty, and he had himself,
    as he thought, impregnably entrenched. Yet in a few short months
    he was in a prison cell deserted and despised by all who had lived
    upon his wickedness--and there he died.

This of course is a mere exhibition of partisan rage and spite. It
contains no single word or phrase in the smallest degree applicable to
Sir John Macdonald, who, far from being dishonest, was ever
scrupulously fair and just in all his dealings, both public and
private. This, I am persuaded, is now well understood. What is not so
well known is that he disliked extravagance of any kind. He was, it is
true, a man of bold conceptions, and when convinced that a large
policy was in the interest of the country, he never hesitated at its
cost. Thus he purchased the North-West, built the Canadian Pacific
Railway, and spent millions on canals. But in the ordinary course of
affairs he was prudent, even economical, and as careful of public
money as of his own. At the close of a long life he spoke of the very
modest competence he had provided for his family as having been
'painfully and laboriously saved.'

If Sir John's critic, quoted above, meant to convey the idea that in
1887 Sir John thought himself firmly entrenched in power, he was far
from the mark. For Sir John went into the elections of 1887 believing
that he would be defeated. The Riel movement in the province of Quebec
had assumed formidable proportions, and the fatuous course of former
Conservative allies, Dalton M'Carthy and the _Mail_ newspaper, in
raising an anti-French and anti-Catholic cry threatened disaster in
Ontario. The friendly provincial Government in Quebec had been
overthrown in October 1886, and in the following December Oliver
Mowat, in the hope of strengthening the hands of Blake, then leading
the Ottawa Opposition, suddenly dissolved the Ontario legislature.
Mowat was successful in his own appeal. But, strange to say, the local
triumph probably injured rather than aided Blake. At least such was
Sir John's opinion. He held that his attitude on the Home Rule
question had alienated a goodly proportion of the Irish vote which
usually went with him, and that these people, having taken the edge
off their resentment by voting Liberal in the provincial elections,
felt free to return to their political allegiance when the Dominion
elections came on two months later. This sounds far-fetched, but it
was the opinion of a man who had been studying political elections in
Ontario all his long life. At any rate, Sir John Macdonald carried
fifty-four out of ninety-two seats in Ontario; and Edward Blake was so
discouraged by the result that on the meeting of the new parliament he
resigned the leadership of the Opposition in favour of Mr Laurier.

Of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his subsequent career it does not devolve
upon me to speak. I will only say that if his predecessors in the
leadership of the Liberal party, for one cause or another, failed to
realize the hopes of their political followers, he amply made up for
their shortcomings by achieving signal success. Fortune, no doubt, was
kinder to him than to them, but, apart from all other questions, Sir
Wilfrid's personal qualities had no small influence in bringing about
his party triumphs. Alike in Opposition and in power, his unfailing
tact, old-fashioned courtesy, conciliatory methods, urbanity,
moderation, and unvarying good temper evoked the sympathy of thousands
whom Blake's coldly intellectual feats failed to attract and
Mackenzie's rigidity of demeanour served only to repel. Simultaneously
with Mr Laurier's advent to the leadership of the Opposition in 1887,
a moderating influence began to be felt in the House of Commons, which
gradually affected the whole tone of political life in Canada, until
the old-time bitterness of party strife in a large measure passed
away.

About a month before Sir John Macdonald died Mr Laurier came to his
office in the House of Commons to discuss some question of
adjournment. When he had gone, the chief said to me, 'Nice chap that.
If I were twenty years younger, he'd be my colleague.' 'Perhaps he
may be yet, sir,' I remarked. Sir John shook his head. 'Too old,' said
he, 'too old,' and passed into the inner room.

I must not omit an amusing incident which happened in the autumn of
1888. During the summer of that year Honoré Mercier, the Liberal prime
minister of Quebec, had called upon Sir John at the Inch Arran hotel
at Dalhousie, New Brunswick. It was the first time they had met, and
Mercier, who showed a disposition to be friendly, asked Sir John if he
would give him an interview with himself and his colleagues at Ottawa
in order to discuss some financial questions outstanding between the
Dominion and the province. Sir John promised to do so, and when he
returned to town fixed a day for the meeting. In the preceding July
the Quebec legislature had passed the once famous Jesuits' Estates
Act. This Act was then before Sir John's Cabinet and he was under
strong pressure to disallow it. While Sir John had no love for Mercier
or his Government, and while he thought the preamble of the Jesuits'
Estates Act, with its ostentatious references to the Pope, highly
objectionable, he had no doubt that the Act was wholly within the
competence of the Quebec legislature and was not a subject for
disallowance. Obviously Quebec could do what it liked with its own
money. Sir John was having much trouble at the time with several of
the provincial legislatures, which were showing a disposition to
encroach upon the federal domain. It was necessary that he should walk
warily, lest he should put himself in the wrong by interfering with
legislation clearly within the power of provincial legislatures. He
was persuaded that the obnoxious phrases in the preamble of the
Jesuits' Estates Act had been inserted with the express object of
tempting him to an arbitrary and unjust exercise of power which would
react disastrously upon him, not only in Quebec, but also in Ontario,
Manitoba, and elsewhere. It was all too palpable, and, as he used to
say, 'in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird.'

Mercier's visit, however, had no relation to this matter, but had been
arranged for the discussion of purely financial matters with Sir John
and his colleagues. The appointed morning arrived, and Mercier,
frock-coated and very formal and precise, was shown into Sir John's
office. A meeting of Council had been called for the occasion, and
while the members were gathering the two leaders exchanged a few
remarks of a purely conventional character. At length, when all was
ready, Sir John rose and, with a stiff bow and 'Will you follow me,
sir?' led the way along the hall towards the council chamber, with
Mercier close behind him. As they turned into the corridor leading to
the chamber, Mercier, feeling some constraint and wishing to make a
little conversation, said, half jokingly, 'Sir John, I wish you would
tell us whether you are going to disallow our Jesuits' Estates Act or
not.' Suddenly the old man unbent, his eyes brightened, his features
grew mobile, as he half looked back over his shoulder and said in a
stage whisper, 'Do you take me for a damn fool?' In a second it was
all over, his figure again became erect, all trace of expression died
out of his face, and with measured pace and serious mien the two men
passed into the council chamber.

My recollections of the day of Sir John Macdonald are chiefly
connected with official, as distinct from parliamentary, life. At the
same time I recall many amusing incidents which took place in the
House of Commons. Of all the members of that assembly I thought Sir
Richard Cartwright the most accomplished debater. He was perhaps the
only member of the House who could afford to have his words taken down
and printed exactly as he spoke them. Uniformly a kind and considerate
minister towards his subordinates, his attitude towards his opponents
in parliament was ferocious, though perhaps this ferocity was often
more simulated than real. One illustration of his savage humour occurs
to me. About the year 1883 a life of Sir John Macdonald appeared
written by a certain John Edmund Collins. Sir John did not know the
author, nor had he any connection with the book. It was merely a
well-ordered presentation of facts already known, and did not profess
to be anything more. Some of the government departments bought copies
and the title appeared in the public accounts, which came before
parliament. This gave Sir Richard one of those opportunities to attack
Sir John of which he never failed to take advantage. After saying some
disagreeable things, he concluded thus: 'However, Mr Speaker, I am
bound to say that I think it quite fit that a gentleman who in his day
has done justice to so many John Collinses, should at last have a John
Collins to do justice to him.' To the uninitiated it may be explained
that 'John Collins' is the name of a rather potent beverage.

This pointed allusion to Sir John's convivial habits leads me to say,
in all candour, that his failings in this regard were greatly
exaggerated. There is no doubt that at one time--in an age when almost
everybody drank wine freely--he was no exception to the general rule.
This was particularly true of the period of his widowerhood, between
1857 and 1867, when his lapses were such as occasionally to interfere
with his public duties. But certainly during the last ten years of his
life (and probably for a longer period) his habits were most
temperate. His principal beverages were milk and at dinner a glass of
claret. I rarely knew him to touch spirits, and if he did so now and
then, it was in great moderation.

Sir John Macdonald never seems to have felt towards Sir Richard
Cartwright the degree of bitterness that marked Cartwright's pursuit
of him. I do not pretend to say that he liked him, but he was always
fair. This letter to an over-zealous supporter may perhaps serve as an
illustration.

                              OTTAWA, _28th March 1891_.

DEAR SIR,--I have yours of the 23rd instant informing me that Sir
Richard Cartwright is going to Kingston to inquire into some matters
with regard to the Provincial penitentiary. He has a right to do so as
a member of Parliament, nor do I think that any impediment should be
thrown in his way. If there be any irregularities committed in the
penitentiary, there are no reasons why they should be hidden, and the
parties committing irregularities properly dealt with.--I am, dear
sir, yours very truly,
                                        JOHN A. MACDONALD.

No sketch of the House of Commons of those days, however brief, should
omit mention of Alonzo Wright, the 'King of the Gatineau,' as he was
commonly known. Wright was a genial, whole-souled plutocrat of the old
school. He represented the county of Ottawa, and resided on the banks
of the Gatineau river, where his hospitable doors were ever open to
his many friends. He was an old-fashioned Tory, but never took
politics very seriously. Sometimes, indeed, he showed symptoms of
independence, but, as Sir John used laughingly to say, 'while Alonzo's
speeches are sometimes wrong, his vote is always right.' Sir John, of
course, was quite satisfied with this arrangement. Once a year, to
the great entertainment of the House, Wright would make a
characteristic speech, felicitously phrased and brimful of humour. One
of these harangues in particular remains in my recollection. Like all
good-natured members residing near the capital, 'Alonzo' was much
plagued by office-seekers of all classes. Among these was a certain
Madame Laplante of Hull, whose aspirations did not rise above a
charwoman's place. She was unusually persistent. One day, as the
'King' was driving over the Sappers Bridge, he saw a woman in front of
his horses waving her arms wildly as a signal to stop. He pulled up,
and saw that it was Madame Laplante. Being rather hazy as to her
present fortunes, he ventured to express the hope that she liked the
position which he had been so fortunate as to obtain for her. Madame
Laplante, with sobs, said that she was still without work. At this the
'King' feigned unbounded indignation. The rest must be told in his own
words.

    'Impossible,' I made answer, 'It cannot be.' Upon receiving
    renewed assurances that so it was, my resolution was taken in an
    instant. Turning my carriage I bade the weeping woman enter, and
    drove at once to the Public Departments. Brushing aside the
    minions who sought to arrest our progress, I strode unannounced
    into the Ministerial presence. 'Sir,' said I, 'I have come to you
    as a suitor for the last time. You may remember that you promised
    me that this worthy woman should be employed forthwith. I learn
    to-day that that promise, like many others you have made me, is
    still unfulfilled. There is a time when patience ceases to be a
    virtue. Sir, my resolution is taken. I am as good a party man as
    lives, but there is something that I value more than my party, and
    that is my self-respect. This afternoon my resignation shall be in
    the hands of the Speaker, and I shall then be free to state
    publicly the sentiments I entertain towards all violators of their
    word, and by the aid of this victim of duplicity, to expose your
    perfidious treatment of one of your hitherto most faithful
    supporters.' My arguments, my entreaties, my threats prevailed,
    and Madame Laplante that day entered the service of her country,
    which she continues to adorn!

Many delightful stories are told of Macdonald's ally, Lord Strathcona.
I have room for only two. A seedy-looking person named M'Donald once
called at the high commissioner's office in London. When asked the
nature of his business, he replied that he was in straitened
circumstances, and that when Lord Strathcona, as young Donald Smith,
had left Forres in Scotland for America, he had been driven to the
port whence he sailed by his present visitor's father. When the
secretary had duly informed Lord Strathcona of this, word was given to
admit M'Donald. Presently the bell rang, and the secretary appeared.
'Make out a cheque for £5 in favour of Mr M'Donald,' said Lord
Strathcona. This was done, and M'Donald went on his way rejoicing. In
a month or so he turned up again; the same thing happened, and again
he departed with a five-pound cheque. This went on for several months;
but M'Donald came once too often. On the occasion of his last visit
Lord Strathcona did not happen to be in a complaisant mood. When
M'Donald was announced he said to the secretary: 'Tell him I'll not
see him. And as for Mr M'Donald's father having driven me from Forres
when I went to America, it is not true, sir! _I walked, sir!_'--the
last three words with tremendous emphasis.

During one of Donald Smith's election contests in Manitoba he felt
some uneasiness as to the probable course of a knot of half-breeds in
his constituency, but was assured by his election agent that these
people were being 'looked after,' and that he need not have any
apprehension in regard to them. This agent belonged to a class of
westerners noted for the vigour rather than for the correctness of
their language. Smith himself, as is well known, was always most
proper in this respect. Now, it so happened that in the last hours of
the campaign the half-breeds who were the objects of his solicitude
were beguiled by the enemy, and that they voted against Smith, who
lost the election. He felt this defeat very keenly, and so did his
agent, who had to bear the additional mortification of having
unintentionally misled his principal. When the results of the polling
were announced, the agent relieved his feelings by denouncing the
delinquent half-breeds in true Hudson's Bay style, and at every
opprobrious and profane epithet Smith was heard to murmur with
sympathetic approval, 'Are they not, Mr ----? are they not? are they
not?'

During the period between 1887 and 1891 the Opposition developed the
policy of unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, which they
made the chief feature of their policy in the general elections of the
latter year. Sir John Macdonald opposed this policy with all the
energy at his command. He held that it would inevitably lead to the
absorption of Canada by the United States, though he did not believe
that this was the desire or the intention of its chief promoters. Sir
John feared too that the cry would prove seductive. In the hope of
arresting the movement before it had more fully advanced, he dissolved
parliament prematurely and appealed to the people in mid-winter. In
this resolve he was perhaps influenced by a growing consciousness of
his failing physical strength. He was less pessimistic as to the
result of the election than in 1887, yet he considered his chances of
success not more than even. As on previous occasions, he had recourse
to Sir Charles Tupper, to whom he cabled on January 21, 1891: 'Your
presence during election contest in Maritime Provinces essential to
encourage our friends. Please come. Answer.'

The old war-horse, who doubtless hadscented the battle from afar, was
not slow in responding to his leader's appeal. The contest was severe,
and on Sir John's part was fought almost single-handed. His Ontario
colleagues were too busy in defending their own seats to render him
much assistance in the province at large. It was on this occasion that
he issued his famous manifesto to the people of Canada containing the
well-known phrase: 'A British subject I was born, a British subject I
will die.' In this manifesto he earnestly exhorted the electors to
reject a policy which, he was persuaded, would imperil their British
allegiance. The people who had so often sustained him in the past
responded to his fervent appeal, and again he was victorious. Nor had
he to wait long for a signal confirmation of his estimate of the
policy of his opponents. On the day after the polling Edward Blake
published a letter to his constituents in West Durham, unsparingly
condemning unrestricted reciprocity as tending towards annexation to
the United States--'a precursor of political Union'--of which he was
unable to approve, and in consequence of which he retired from public
life.

Macdonald had won, but it was his last triumph. The wheel had gone
full circle, and he, who in the flush of youth had begun his
political career with the announcement of his firm resolve to resist,
from whatever quarter it might come, any attempt which might tend to
weaken the union between Canada and the mother country, fittingly
closed it forty-seven years later by an appeal to the people of the
Dominion to aid him in his last effort 'for the unity of the Empire
and the preservation of our commercial and political freedom.' He won,
but the effort proved too great for his waning vitality, and within
three months of his victory he passed away.

In _The Times_ of September 1, 1903, Dr L. S. (now Sir Starr) Jameson
published this letter from Cecil Rhodes to Sir John Macdonald:

                              CAPE TOWN, 8_th May_ 1891.

DEAR SIR,--I wished to write and congratulate you on winning the
elections in Canada. I read your manifesto and I could understand the
issue. If I might express a wish, it would be that we could meet
before our stern fate claims us. I might write pages, but I feel I
know you and your politics as if we had been friends for years. The
whole thing lies in the question, Can we invent some tie with our
mother country that will prevent separation? It must be a practical
one, for future generations will not be born in England. The curse is
that English politicians cannot see the future. They think they will
always be the manufacturing mart of the world, but do not understand
what protection coupled with reciprocal relations means. I have taken
the liberty of writing to you; if you honour me with an answer I will
write again.--

Yours,                                  C. J. RHODES.

_P.S._ You might not know who I am, so I will say I am the Prime
Minister of this Colony--that is the Cape Colony.

Sir John Macdonald never received this letter. It was written in South
Africa in May, and Sir John died on June 6.

Sir John Macdonald's resemblance to Lord Beaconsfield has often been
remarked. That it must have been striking is evident from Sir Charles
Dilke's comment:

    The first time I saw Sir John Macdonald was shortly after Lord
    Beaconsfield's death and as the clock struck midnight. I was
    starting from Euston station, and there appeared at the step of
    the railway carriage, in Privy Councillor's uniform (the right to
    wear which is confined to so small a number of persons that one
    expects to know by sight those who wear it), a figure precisely
    similar to that of the late Conservative leader, and it required,
    indeed, a severe exercise of presence of mind to remember that
    there had been a City banquet from which the apparition must be
    coming, and rapidly to arrive by a process of exhaustion at the
    knowledge that this twin brother of that Lord Beaconsfield whom
    shortly before I had seen in the sick room, which he was not to
    leave, must be the Prime Minister of Canada.[35]

[Footnote 35: _Problems of Greater Britain_, p. 44.]

At an evening reception in London, Sir John, who was standing a little
apart, saw a lady attract another's attention, saying in an earnest
whisper, 'You say you have never seen Lord Beaconsfield. There he is,'
pointing to Sir John.

Sir John Macdonald's underlying and controlling thought was ever for
the British Empire. That Canada should exist separate and apart from
England was a contingency he never contemplated. The bare mention of
such a possibility always evoked his strongest condemnation as being
fatal to the realization of a united Empire, which was the dominant
aspiration of his life.[36] To see Canada, Australia, and South Africa
united by ties of loyalty, affection, and material interest; to see
them ranged round the mother country as a protection and a defence--to
see the dear land of England secure, to see her strong in every
quarter of the globe, mistress of the seas, 'with the waves rolling
about her feet, happy in her children and her children blessed in
her'--such was Sir John Macdonald's dearest wish. As his devoted wife
has most truly written of him:

    Through all the fever, the struggles, the battles, hopes and
    fears, disappointments and successes, joys and sorrows, anxieties
    and rewards of those long busy years, this fixed idea of an united
    Empire was his guiding star and inspiration. I, who can speak with
    something like authority on this point, declare that I do not
    think any man's mind could be more fully possessed of an
    overwhelming strong principle than was this man's mind of this
    principle. It was the 'Empire' and 'England's precedent' always,
    in things great and small--from the pattern of a ceremony, or the
    spelling of a word, to the shaping of laws and the modelling of a
    constitution. With a courage at once fierce and gentle, generally
    in the face of tremendous opposition, often against dangerous
    odds, he carried measure after measure in the Canadian Parliament,
    each measure a stone in the edifice of empire which he so
    passionately believed in and was so proud to help build and
    rear.[37]

[Footnote 36: 'Some few fools at Montreal are talking about
Independence, which is another name for Annexation. The latter cry,
however, is unpopular from its disloyalty, and the Annexationists have
changed their note and speak of the Dominion being changed into an
independent but friendly kingdom. This is simply nonsense. British
America must belong either to the American or British System of
Government' (Sir John Macdonald to the Hon. R. W. W. Carrall, dated
Ottawa, September 29, 1869).

'A cardinal point in our policy is connection with England. I have no
patience with those men who talk as if the time must come when we must
separate from England. I see no necessity for it. I see no necessity
for such a culmination, and the discussion or the mention of it and
the suggestion of it to the people can only be mischievous'
(_Liberal-Conservative Hand Book_, 1876, pp. 22-3).

'As to Independence--to talk of Independence is--to use Mr Disraeli's
happy phrase--"veiled treason." It is Annexation in disguise, and I am
certain that if we were severed from England, and were now standing
alone with our four millions of people, the consequence would be that
before five years we should be absorbed into the United States'
(_ibid._, p. 24).

'The solid substantial advantage of being able to obtain money on
better terms than we could on our own credit alone is not the only
benefit this guarantee will confer upon us; for it will put a finish
to the hopes of all dreamers or speculators who desire or believe in
the alienation and separation of the colonies from the mother country.
That is a more incalculable benefit than the mere advantage of
England's guarantee of our financial stability, great and important as
that is' (Debates, House of Commons, 1872, p. 339).

'Gentlemen, we want no independence in this country, except the
independence we have at this moment' (_Report of the Demonstration in
Honour of the Fortieth Anniversary of Sir John A. Macdonald's Entrance
into Public Life._ Toronto, 1885, p. 103).

'Those who disliked the colonial connection spoke of it as a chain,
but it was a golden chain, and he for one, was glad to wear the
fetters' (Debates, House of Commons, 1875, p. 981).]

[Footnote 37: Montreal _Gazette_, October 25, 1897.]

A parliamentary federation of the Empire he considered impracticable.
He did not believe that the people of Canada--or of any other
dependency of Great Britain--would ever consent to be taxed by a
central body sitting outside its borders, nor did he relish the idea
that the mother of parliaments at Westminster should be subordinated
to any federal legislature, no matter how dignified and important it
might be. He believed in allowing Canada's relations with the mother
country to remain as they are. To use his own words, spoken within a
year or so of his death:

    I am satisfied that the vast majority of the people of Canada are
    in favour of the continuance and perpetuation of the connection
    between the Dominion and the mother country. There is nothing to
    gain and everything to lose by separation. I believe that if any
    party or person were to announce or declare such a thing, whether
    by annexation with the neighbouring country, the great republic to
    the south of us, or by declaring for independence, I believe that
    the people of Canada would say 'No.' We are content, we are
    prosperous, we have prospered under the flag of England; and I say
    that it would be unwise, that we should be lunatics, to change the
    certain present happiness for the uncertain chances of the future.
    I always remember, when this occurs to me, the Italian epitaph: 'I
    was well, I would be better, and here I am.' We are well, we know,
    all are well, and I am satisfied that the majority of the people
    of Canada are of the same opinion which I now venture to express
    here.... I say that it would bring ruin and misfortune, any
    separation from the United Kingdom. I believe that is the feeling
    of the present Parliament of Canada, and I am certain that any
    party, or the supposed party, making an appeal to the people of
    Canada, or any persons attempting to form a party on the principle
    of separation from England, no matter whether they should propose
    to walk alone, or join another country, I believe that the people
    of Canada would rise almost to a man and say, 'No, we will do as
    our fathers have done. We are content, and our children are
    content, to live under the flag of Great Britain.'[38]

[Footnote 38: Pope's _Memoirs of Sir John Macdonald_, vol. ii, pp. 220-1.]

Macdonald did not believe in forcing the pace. He looked for a
preferential trade arrangement with the United Kingdom, and the
establishment of a common system of defence. In all other respects he
desired the maintenance of the _status quo_, being content to leave
the rest to the future. So much for the Imperial relations. That in
all matters relating to its internal affairs Canada should continue to
possess the fullest rights of self-government, including exclusive
powers of taxation, he considered as an indispensable condition to
its well-being.

   *   *   *   *   *

Nearly twenty-three years have passed since Sir John Macdonald died,
and to-day his figure looms even larger in the public mind than on
that never-to-be-forgotten June evening when the tolling bells
announced to the people of Ottawa the passing of his great spirit.
When one takes into account all that he had to contend
against--poverty, indifferent health, the specific weakness to which I
have alluded, the virulence of opponents, the faint-heartedness of
friends--and reflects upon what he accomplished, one asks what was the
secret of his marvellous success? The answer must be that it was 'in
the large composition of the man'; in his boundless courage, patience,
perseverance; and, above all, in his wonderful knowledge of human
nature--his power of entering into the hearts and minds of those about
him and of binding them to his service. His life is a great example
and incentive to young Canadians. Sir John Macdonald began the world
at fifteen, with but a grammar-school education; and, possessing
neither means nor influence of any kind, rose by his own exertions to
a high place on the roll of British statesmen; laboured to build up,
under the flag of England, a nation on this continent; and died full
of years and honours, amid the nation's tears.

    Looking o'er the noblest of our time,
    Who climbed those heights it takes an age to climb,
    I marked not one revealing to mankind
    A sweeter nature or a stronger mind.




BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE


The following works, dealing in whole or in part with the day of Sir
John Macdonald, may be consulted: Sir Joseph Pope's _Memoirs of the
Right Honourable Sir John Alexander Macdonald_ (two vols.: London,
Edward Arnold, 1894); Sir John Willison's _Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the
Liberal Party_ (two vols.: Toronto, Morang, 1903); George R. Parkin's
_John A. Macdonald_ (Toronto, Morang, 1908); Dent's _The Last Forty
Years, or Canada since the Union of 1841_ (Toronto, 1881); Castell
Hopkins's _Life and Work of Sir John Thompson_ (Toronto, 1895); Sir
Richard Cartwright's _Reminiscences_ (Toronto, Briggs, 1913); Sir
Joseph Pope's pamphlet, _Sir John Macdonald Vindicated_ (Toronto,
1913); Buckingham and Ross, _The Honourable Alexander Mackenzie: His
Life and Times_ (Toronto, 1892); Lewis's _George Brown_ (Toronto,
Morang, 1906); Sir Charles Tupper's _Recollections of Sixty Years in
Canada_ (London, Cassell, 1914).

Consult also the writings of W. L. Grant, J. L. Morison, Edward Kylie,
George M. Wrong, John Lewis, Sir Joseph Pope, and O. D. Skelton in
_Canada and its Provinces_, vols. v, vi, and ix.

For biographical sketches of Robert Baldwin, George Brown, Sir
Alexander Campbell, Sir George Cartier, Sir Antoine Dorion, Sir
Alexander Gait, Sir Francis Hincks, Sir Louis LaFontaine, John
Sandfield Macdonald, Sir Allan MacNab, Sir E. P. Taché, Sir John Rose,
and other prominent persons connected with this narrative, see Taylor,
_Portraits of British Americans_ (Montreal, 1865-67); Dent, _The
Canadian Portrait Gallery_ (Toronto, 1880); and _The Dictionary of
National Biography_ (London, 1903).




INDEX


Abbott, John, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald:
  subscribes to Annexation manifesto, 27;
  prime minister, 142.

Aberdeen, Lord, governor-general, 149.

Allan, Sir Hugh,
  and the Pacific Scandal, 97 and note, 99, 101.

Annexation manifesto of 1849, some subscribers to, 27.

Archibald, Adams,
  a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 79;
  lieutenant-governor of Manitoba, 91.

Argyll Duke of, and Sir John Macdonald, 116-17.

Assembly. See Parliament.


'Baldwin Reformers,' their union with the Conservatives, 38, 39, 46.

Baldwin, Robert,
  with LaFontaine in power, 20, 28;
  burned in effigy, 22;
  defends the Liberal-Conservative alliance, 39, 46;
  the Common School Act, 55;
  retires from public life, 20, 31.

Beaconsfield, Lord, and Sir John Macdonald, 175-6. See Disraeli.

Blake, Edward, 22;
  prime minister of Ontario, 93;
  resigns in order to assist his party in the House of Commons, 96;
  minister of Justice, 107, 109;
  his opposition to the building of the C.P.R., 120;
  is out-generalled on the Riel resolution, 132-3;
  resigns Liberal leadership, 160;
  retires from public life, 173;
  his career and character, 95, 104-10.

Bowell, Mackenzie, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 152.

British Columbia, its admission into Confederation, 93, 96, 118-21.

British America League, the, resolutions of, 27-8.

British North America Act, the, 74;
  and the qualification of voters, 133.

Brown, George,
  founds the 'Globe,' 18;
  stirs up racial and religious strife between Upper and Lower Canada,
  29-31, 32, 71;
  his antagonism towards Macdonald, 32
  and note, 33, 46-7, 95, 117;
  opposes Seigneurial Tenure and Clergy Reserves Bills, 45
  and note; leader of the Clear Grits, 47;
  his policy of Rep. by Pop., 54-5, 67, 69, 72;
  his Short Administration in 1858 and humiliation, 57-8, 59;
  his opinion of the Double Shuffle, 61;
  joins hands with Macdonald and Cartier to carry through the scheme
    of Confederation, 42, 71-3, 83;
  joins the Taché-Macdonald Cabinet, 73, 104;
  quarrels with his colleagues and resumes his ferocious attacks on
    the Government, 75
  and note; out of Parliament, 95;
  his letter soliciting campaign funds, 101 note;
  his assassination, 18, 118.


Campbell, Sir Alexander, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald:
  studies law under Macdonald, 7-8;
  becomes a partner, 14;
  the aristocrat of Macdonald's Cabinet, 115, 149-51.

Canada, and the Hudson's Bay Company, 49, 88;
  financial depression in 1857, 53;
  the visit of the Prince of Wales (Edward VII), 67-8;
  the position of prime minister, 76-7;
  the transfer of the North-West, 88;
  the Treaty of Washington, 91-3, 94;
  the terms of union with British Columbia, 93;
  the building of the C.P.R., 49-52, 97-101, 118-21;
  the Franchise Act of 1885, 135-8;
  reciprocity with United States, 172, 173;
  content to live under the flag of Great Britain, 179-81.

Canadian Pacific Railway, the,
  first mooted, 49-52;
  the Pacific Scandal, 97
  and note, 100;
  the building of, 118-126.

Caron, Sir Adolphe, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 140, 142-3.

Cartier, Sir George Étienne, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald;
  leader of French-Canadian wing of Liberal-Conservative government,
    41, 44-5, 47, 57, 96, 115;
  his work on behalf of Confederation, 42, 62, 78, 80;
  the Double Shuffle, 59-62;
  his relations with Macdonald, 78, 91;
  negotiates for the transfer of the North-West, 88.

Cartwright, Sir Richard, 87, 96;
  takes umbrage at Macdonald's appointment of Hincks as finance
    minister, 84, 85, 86 and note, 87;
  his relations with Macdonald, 116, 118, 150, 165-7;
  a most accomplished debater, 164-5.

Cayley, William, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 25.

Chapleau, Adolphe, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 140, 142-3, 156.

Clear Grits, the,
 press for the secularization of the Clergy Reserves, 29;
  combine with the Conservatives in the defeat of the Government, 35, 36;
  combine with the Rouges,47;
  protest against the choice of a capital being left to Her Majesty, 53;
  their success with 'Rep. by Pop.' and 'No Popery' in Upper Canada, 54-6.

Clergy Reserves question, the, 29 and note, 37, 38, 45.

Collins, John Edmund, his book on Sir John Macdonald, 165-166.

Commercial Bank, failure of the, 82, 86 and note.

Common School Act, the, 55.

Confederation, the scheme of, 62, 71-4, 75, 76.

Conservatives,
  join with Lower Canadian Liberals in 1854, becoming the
    Liberal-Conservative party, 36-9, 102;
  defection among, 69;
  their National Policy, 112.
  See Parliament.

Costigan, John, and Macdonald's Home Rule views, 153-4.


Derby, Lord, 49, 58.

Dilke, Sir Charles, on Sir John Macdonald's resemblance to Lord
  Beaconsfield, 175-6.

Disraeli, Benjamin, 58;
  on Goldwin Smith, 156.
  See Beaconsfield.

Dominion of Canada. See Canada.

Dorion, A. A., the Rouge leader, 39-4O, 47, 56, 67, 96;
  his alliance with Brown, 45 and note;
  in the Macdonald-Sicotte Cabinet, 69-70;
  hostile to Confederation, 74.

Dorion, J. B. E., 'l'enfant terrible,' 56.

Double Shuffle episode, the, 52, 57, 59-62.

Draper, W. H., and Macdonald, 13;
  from prime minister to chief justice, 19;
  Canadian commissioner in the Hudson's Bay Company investigation, 49.

Dufferin, Lord, and the Pacific Scandal, 97 and note;
  and Macdonald, 115-16.

Durham, Lord, his Report on the state of Canada, 15, 34;
  the question of its authorship, 15 note.


Elgin, Lord, his troubles in connection with the Rebellion Losses
  Bill, 22, 23, 24, 25.


Family Compact, the, 3, 16-17, 44.

Farrer, Edward, his amusing article on Sir John Macdonald, 131.

Fitzpatrick, Sir Charles, chief justice, 128.

Foster, George E., a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 145-6, 156.

Fournier, Telesphore, 56;
  minister of Justice, 107.

Franchise Act of 1885, the, 133-138.

French Canadians, their hostility to the Union Act, 34-35;
  and Sir Edmund Head, 40;
  and Rep. by Pop., 54;
  and the execution of Riel, 127, 130-2.


Galt, Sir A. T., a colleague of Sir John Macdonald:
  sent for in 1858, 58-9;
  his work on behalf of Confederation, 62, 72-3, 78;
  resigns portfolio of Finance, 82, 113;
  his character, 82-3, 84-5.

Gladstone, W. E., attacks the Rebellion Losses Bill, 25;
  his case of a 'Double Shuffle,' 62 and note;
  and the Fenian claims, 95;
  and Home Rule, 154.

Gourlay, Robert, and the Family  Compact, 3.

Grandin, Bishop of St Albert, denounces Louis Riel, 129-30.

Grand Trunk Railway, opening of, 48.

Great Western Railway, opening of, 48.

Guibord, Joseph, the famous case of, 110-12.


Head, Sir Edmund, governor-general, 40;
  the Double Shuffle episode, 57-62.

Hincks, Sir Francis,
  a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 25;
  with Morin in power, 20, 31;
  defends the Liberal-Conservative alliance, 37, 39;
  leaves the country, 46;
  becomes finance minister under Macdonald on his return, 83-4, 93, 96;
  his character, 85-6.

Holton, Luther H., 56, 65.

House of Commons. See Parliament.

Howe, Joseph, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald:
  his opposition to Confederation, 79;
  enters the Dominion Cabinet, 79-80;
  his work in connection with the transfer of the North-West,  88-9;
  lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia, 80.

Hudson's Bay Company, and the transfer of the North-West, 49, 51, 87-8.


Independence of Parliament Act of 1857, the, 59-60.

"Institut Canadien, L'," the members' attitude towards the pastoral
  letter of 1858, 110-12.

Intercolonial Railway projected, 48.


Jameson, Sir Starr, and Cecil Rhodes, 174.

Jesuits' Estates Act, an amusing incident in connection with the, 162-4,

Jones, Walter R., his letter proposing a railway to the Pacific, 50-2.


Kingston,
  the principal town in Upper Canada in 1815, 1, 2, 4;
  as the seat of government, 14, 16, 27 note, 52;
  its population compared, 14, 48.


LaFontaine, Sir Louis H.,
  leader of French Canadians in Liberal Government, 17, 20, 28;
  burned in effigy, 22;
  withdraws from public life, 20, 31, 38.

Liberal-Conservative party,
  beginning of, 36-9, 40;
  its programme, 28.

Landry, P., speaker of the Senate, 132-3.

Langevin, Sir Hector, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald,
  64, 115, 132-3, 140-3.

Laurier, Wilfrid,
  enters Parliament,103;
  Liberal leader, 137; his personality, 160-1.

Liberal party, the,
  its opposition to the building of the C.P.R., 93, 97 note, 98-9,
  100, 118, 119-21 and note;
  its strength in 1872, 96-7, 102;
  and the Riel resolution, 132-133;
  its organized obstruction to Macdonald's Franchise Bill, 136-7;
  its policy of unrestricted reciprocity with United States, 172.
  See Baldwin Reformers and Clear Grits.

Lower Canada,
  its development between 1851 and 1861, 47-8;
  and Rep. by Pop. and Non-sectarian Schools, 54, 56.


M'Carthy, Dalton, his fatuous course in 1887, 159.

Macdonald, Sir John,
  his birth and parentage, 1, 12-13;
  boyhood and schooldays, 3-6;
  called to the bar and opens a law-office in Kingston, 6-7, 14;
  'Hit him, John,' 8-9;
  shoulders a musket in 1837, 9, 15, 16;
  acts as counsel in the Von Shoultz affair, 9-12, 13;
  elected to the city council of Kingston, 14;
  his politics, 16 and note, 22;
  elected to Assembly, 17;
  enters Draper's Cabinet, 19   and note;
  favours Kingston as the seat of government, 26;
  refuses to sign the Annexation manifesto and advocates the formation
  of the British America League, 27-8;
  his policy tending to ameliorate the racial and religious differences
  existing between Upper and Lower Canada, 31-2 and note, 33-5;
  attorney-general, 36, 38, 39, 107;
  his connection with Cartier, 41, 44-5, 47, 78;
  and Sir Allan MacNab, 41, 43-4;
  his relations with Brown, 33, 46-7, 58 note, 71, 72-3, 104;
  prime minister, 54;
  opposes non-sectarian schools, 55-6;
  the 'Double Shuffle' episode, 59-62;
  and Sir John Rose, 64-5;
  defeated on his Militia Bill, 68-9, 75;
  his work on behalf of Confederation, 42, 71, 72-3, 74, 75, 99, 100;
  forms the first Dominion Administration and is created K.C.B., 76-7;
  and Sir Charles Tupper, 79, 156-8;
  and Joseph Howe, 79-80,
  and D'Arcy M'Gee, 81;
  on Galt, 83;
  on Galt and Cartwright's defection, 84-5, 86-7, 166;
  on his appointment of Hincks as finance minister, 83-4, 85-6;
  his troubles over the transfer of the North-West, 87-8;
  and Donald A. Smith, 89-90, 170;
  member of the Joint High Commission which resulted in the Treaty of
  Washington, 91-2;
  his troubles on the eve of the elections of 1872, 93-4, 100;
  his account of the contests in Ontario, 95-6;
  the Pacific Scandal, 97-101;
  and Edward Blake, 109; his National Policy, 112-14, 117;
  his opinion of Lord Dufferin, 115-116;
  his relations with the Duke of Argyll, 116-17;
  his great work in connection with the building of the C.P.R.,
  50-2, 118-26, 139;
  the trial and execution of Louis Riel, and the political effect, 127-133;
  his experience of the fickleness of public opinion, 130-1;
  his political strategy, 132-3;
  his desire for a uniform franchise system, 133-4;
  and the necessity of a property qualification for the right to
  vote, 134-5;
  his Franchise Act, 135-8, 139;
  a believer in the extension of the franchise to single women, 138;
  on his relations with Langevin, Caron, and Chapleau, 140-3;
  and his difficulty about his successor, 141;
  and Sir John Thompson, 146-9;
  and Sir Alexander Campbell, and Sir Oliver Mowat, 7-8, 149-51;
  mourns J. H. Pope's loss, 151-2;
  his reply to Sir C. H. Tupper, 153;
  against Irish Home Rule, 154-5;
  on Goldwin Smith, 154-6;
  on Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 161;
  an amusing interlude with Honoré Mercier, 162-4;
  a pointed allusion to his supposed convivial habits, 165-6;
  on Alonzo Wright, the 'King,' 167;
  opposed to unrestricted reciprocity with United States, 172;
  his famous manifesto of 1891, 173-4;
  and Cecil Rhodes, 174-5;
  his resemblance to Lord Beaconsfield, 175-6;
  his Imperialism, 17, 92, 154-5, 174, 176-82;
  his character, 12-13, 139-40, 158-159, 178-9, 182-3;
  his death, 182.

Macdonald, John Sandfield,
  a 'political Ishmaelite,' 63;
  in power with L. V. Sicotte, 69-70, 81;
  opposed to Confederation, 74;
  prime minister of Ontario, 93, 95.

M'Dougall, William,
  a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 63;
  his work on behalf of Confederation, 73, 77;
  lieutenant-governor of the North-West, 88, 89.

M'Gee, Thomas D'Arcy,
  a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 63, 81;
  his career and assassination, 81-2.

Mackenzie, Alexander,
  leader of Liberals, 96, 114, 117, 120-121;
  prime minister, 103, 105;
  his career and character, 103-104, 133.

MacNab, Sir Allan,
  a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 25;
  prime minister, 36-7, 41;
  his career, 42-4.

Macpherson, Sir David,
  a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 27, 98 note, 119;
  minister of Interior, 143-4.

Maitland, Sir Peregrine, lieutenant-governor, 3.

Mercier, Honoré,
  prime minister of Quebec, 132;
  his interview with Sir John Macdonald, 162-4.

Metcalfe, Sir Charles, governor-general, 17.

Militia, commission on, 68-9.

Moderate Reformers. See Baldwin Reformers.

Monck, Lord,
  and the first Dominion Cabinet 76-7;
  and the first Dominion Day honours, 77-8.

Montreal,
  the seat of government, 18-19, 26, 27 note, 52;
  its population, 48;
  the riots in connection with the Rebellion Losses Bill, 22, 23-6.

Morin, A. N.,
  a colleague of Sir John Macdonald: leader of French-Canadian wing
  of Liberal Government, 31;
  and of Liberal-Conservatives, 36-39;
  retires to the bench, 41.

Morris, Alexander, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 72.

Mount Stephen, Lord, 113, 141;
  introduces Donald A. Smith to Macdonald, 89, 90;
  president of the C.P.R., 122, 125;
  his letter to Sir John Macdonald, 123-4;
  and the reply, 125 note.

Mowat, Sir Oliver, studies law under Macdonald, 7-8;
  in Brown's Short Administration, 64;
  his work on behalf of Confederation, 73;
  prime minister of Ontario, 96, 160.


National Policy, the, 112-14, 117.

New Brunswick, and Confederation, 73, 74, 96.

North-West, its transfer, 87-91.

North-West Rebellion, the, 126-127, 129.

Nova Scotia, and Confederation, 73, 79, 93;
  ratifies Macdonald's policy in connection with the Treaty of
  Washington, 92, 96.


Ontario, its population and condition in 1815, 2, 3.

Ottawa,
  chosen as the capital city of Canada, 26 and note, 53, 57.


Pacific Scandal episode, the, 97-101.

Papineau, L. J., leader of the Rouges, 29.

Parliament,
  and the Rebellion Losses Bill, 20-6, 28;
  the selection of the capital, 53, 57;
  the Double Shuffle, 59-62;
  Conservatives defeated on Militia Bill, 68-9;
  the double majority principle laid down, 70;
  Liberals defeated on the National Policy, 113-15, 117;
  the building of the C.P.R., 119-21, 122, 125
  and note; the Electoral Franchise Act, 135-8;
  a moderating influence begins to be felt, 161.

Pope, J. H.,
  a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 72, 115, 118;
  his political sagacity, 151-2.

Prince Edward Island, and Confederation, 73, 74, 96.


Quebec,
  as a seat of government, 26, 27 note, 52;
  its population in 1861, 48;
  Confederation conference in, 74;
  effect of Riel's execution on, 130-2, 159;
  and the Jesuits' Estates Act, 162-3.


Radicals of Upper Canada,
  See Clear Grits.

Rebellion Losses Act, the troubles and disturbances in connection
  with, 21-6.

Red River insurrection, the, 89, 90.

Rhodes, Cecil, his letter to Sir John Macdonald, 174-5.

Riel, Louis,
  leader of the Red River insurrection, 89, 93;
  and the North-West Rebellion, 126-7, 129-30;
  his trial and execution, 128-9;
  and its political effect, 130-3, 159.

Rose, Sir John,
  a colleague of Sir John Macdonald: subscribes to Annexation
  manifesto, 27;
  a close friend of Edward VII, 64-5, 67, 68;
  finance minister, 83;
  takes up residence in London, 83.

Rose, Lady, the tragic event in her life, 65-7.

Ross, John, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald: joins the MacNab-Morin
  Cabinet, 37;
  resigns, 46;
  and Confederation, 62.

Rouge party, its programme, 29;
  its alliance with the Clear Grits, 31, 35, 36, 47, 69-70;
  opposed to Confederation, 74.

Russell, Lord John, defends the Rebellion Losses Bill, 25;
  in the Hudson's Bay Company investigation, 49.

Ryerson, Rev. Egerton, superintendent of Schools, 55-6.


St Andrews Society of Montreal, 24.

School question, the, 54, 55.

Scott, Thomas, his murder at Fort Garry, 89, 93, 127.

Seigneurial Tenure, abolition of, 37 and note, 45.

Sherwood, Henry, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 19-20.

Sicotte, L. V., leader of French-Canadian wing of Liberal
  Government, 69-70.

Smith, Donald A. See Strathcona, Lord.

Smith, Frank, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 152.

Smith, Goldwin, two examples of his malevolence and wit, 103-4;
  and Sir John Macdonald's Imperialism, 154-6.

Spence, Thomas, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 37.

Stephen, George. See Mount Stephen, Lord.

Strathcona, Lord, his first meeting with Sir John Macdonald, 89-90;
  his mission to Red River Colony, 91;
  and the C.P.R., 121, 125;
  two anecdotes concerning, 170-1.

Sweeny, Robert, the tragedy of, 65-7.

Sydenham, Lord, governor-general, 14, 34.


Taché, Sir Étienne, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 44, 54, 70.

Thompson, Sir John, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 142, 146, 156;
  his character, 146-9.

Tilley, Sir Leonard, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 77, 115;
  his continuous spell of office, 145.

Toronto, a comparison in population, 14, 48;
  as a seat of government, 26, 27 note, 52.

Tupper, Sir Charles, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald: his work on
  behalf of Confederation, 42, 77, 75;
  his influence in Nova Scotia and his relations with Macdonald,
  79-80, 115, 156-8, 172-3;
  his interest in the C.P.R., 119, 120, 122;
  high commissioner in London, 141 note, 146.

Tupper, C. H., a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 153.


Union Act of 1840, the, 34-5, 54, 55.

United Empire Loyalist settlements in Ontario, 4-5.

United States, and reciprocity with Canada, 75, 113-14, 172, 173;
  and the Treaty of Washington, 91-3;
  the franchise system in, 134.

Upper Canada, development of between 1851 and 1861, 47-8.


Von Shoultz, his career and court-martial, 9-12.


Warde, Major H. J., killed in a duel, 66.

White, Thomas, a colleague of Sir John Macdonald, 144, 156;
  an unlucky politician, 144-5.

Wolseley, Colonel, quells the Red River insurrection, 90, 91.

Wright, Alonzo, the 'King of the Gatineau,' a characteristic speech, 167-9.




_THE CHRONICLES OF CANADA_

Edited by George M. Wrong and H. H. Langton
of the University of Toronto

A series of thirty-two freshly-written narratives for popular reading,
designed to set forth, in historic continuity, the principal events
and movements in Canada, from the Norse Voyages to the Railway
Builders.


PART I. THE FIRST EUROPEAN VISITORS

    1. _The Dawn of Canadian History_
        A Chronicle of Aboriginal Canada
                        BY STEPHEN LEACOCK

    2. _The Mariner of St Malo_
        A Chronicle of the Voyages of Jacques Cartier
                        BY STEPHEN LEACOCK


PART II. THE RISE OF NEW FRANCE

    3. _The Founder of New France_
        A Chronicle of Champlain
                        BY CHARLES W. COLBY

    4. _The Jesuit Missions_
        A Chronicle of the Cross in the Wilderness
                        BY THOMAS GUTHRIE MARQUIS

    5. _The Seigneurs of Old Canada_
        A Chronicle of New-World Feudalism
                        BY WILLIAM BENNETT MUNRO

    6. _The Great Intendant_
        A Chronicle of Jean Talon
                        BY THOMAS CHAPAIS

    7. _The Fighting Governor_
        A Chronicle of Frontenac
                        BY CHARLES W. COLBY


PART III. THE ENGLISH INVASION

    8. _The Great Fortress_
        A Chronicle of Louisbourg
                        BY WILLIAM WOOD

    9. _The Acadian Exiles_
        A Chronicle of the Land of Evangeline
                        BY ARTHUR G. DOUGHTY

   10. _The Passing of New France_
        A Chronicle of Montcalm
                        BY WILLIAM WOOD

   11. _The Winning of Canada_
        A Chronicle of Wolfe
                        BY WILLIAM WOOD


PART IV. THE BEGINNINGS OF BRITISH CANADA

   12. _The Father of British Canada_
        A Chronicle of Carleton
                        BY WILLIAM WOOD

   13. _The United Empire Loyalists_
        A Chronicle of the Great Migration
                        BY W. STEWART WALLACE

   14. _The War with the United States_
        A Chronicle of 1812
                        BY WILLIAM WOOD


PART V. THE RED MAN IN CANADA

   15. _The War Chief of the Ottawas_
        A Chronicle of the Pontiac War
                        BY THOMAS GUTHRIE MARQUIS

   16. _The War Chief of the Six Nations_
        A Chronicle of Joseph Brant
                        BY LOUIS AUBREY WOOD

   17. _Tecumseh_
        A Chronicle of the last Great Leader of his People
                        BY ETHEL T. RAYMOND


PART VI. PIONEERS OF THE NORTH AND WEST

   18. _The 'Adventurers of England' on Hudson Bay_
        A Chronicle of the Fur Trade in the North
                        BY AGNES C. LAUT

   19. _Pathfinders of the Great Plains_
        A Chronicle of La Vérendrye and his Sons
                        BY LAWRENCE J. BURPEE

   20. _Adventurers of the Far North_
        A Chronicle of the Arctic Seas
                        BY STEPHEN LEACOCK

   21. _The Red River Colony_
        A Chronicle of the Beginnings of Manitoba
                        BY LOUIS AUBREY WOOD

   22. _Pioneers of the Pacific Coast_
        A Chronicle of Sea Rovers and Fur Hunters
                        BY AGNES C. LAUT

   23. _The Cariboo Trail_
        A Chronicle of the Gold-fields of British Columbia
                        BY AGNES C. LAUT


PART VII. THE STRUGGLE FOR POLITICAL FREEDOM

   24. _The Family Compact_
        A Chronicle of the Rebellion in Upper Canada
                        BY W. STEWART WALLACE

   25. _The Patriotes of '37_
        A Chronicle of the Rebellion in Lower Canada
                        BY ALFRED D. DECELLES

   26. _The Tribune of Nova Scotia_
        A Chronicle of Joseph Howe
                        BY WILLIAM LAWSON GRANT

   27. _The Winning of Popular Government_
        A Chronicle of the Union of 1841
                        BY ARCHIBALD MACMECHAN


PART VIII. THE GROWTH OF NATIONALITY

   28. The Fathers of Confederation
       A Chronicle of the Birth of the Dominion
                        BY A. H. U. COLQUHOUN

   29. The Day of Sir John Macdonald
       A Chronicle of the Early Years of the Dominion
                        BY SIR JOSEPH POPE

   30. The Day of Sir Wilfrid Laurier
       A Chronicle of Our Own Times
                        BY OSCAR D. SKELTON


PART IX. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

   31. All Afloat
       A Chronicle of Craft and Waterways
                        BY WILLIAM WOOD

   32. The Railway Builders
       A Chronicle of Overland Highways
                        BY OSCAR D. SKELTON


Published by

Glasgow, Brook & Company

TORONTO, CANADA

[End of _The Day of Sir John Macdonald_ by Sir Joseph Pope]